Sitting of 26 April 1971

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

    Peking (Talks)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent talks in Peking between the British Chargé d'Affaires and Mr. Chou En-lai.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The interview on 2nd March was at the request of the Chinese Prime Minister. The fact that it took place is a further indication of a slow but welcome improvement in our relations over the past year.
    Mr. Allaun: As China and America are now publicly talking sense, would our country do the same on this matter, and would the Government, therefore, take three steps towards promoting peace and trade—first of all, arrange a Ministerial visit; secondly, appoint an ambassador to Peking; and, thirdly, take the initiative at the United Nations for the admission of China on a simple majority?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have long sought to have an ambassador in Peking, because that would enable us to talk even greater sense, perhaps, than we do. As for the Ministerial visit, I am always willing to consider it at some future date. On the other matter I think we had better wait a little longer.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on progress in the Common Market negotiations.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I have at present nothing to add to my statement of 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the negotiations have run into some difficulties—through no fault of my right hon. and learned Friend, whose skill and pertinacity are well known—would the Government consider holding a summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of France to discuss such matters as defence and sterling, which are not on the agenda of the negotiations but are, I think, relevant to them?
    Mr. Rippon: Certainly there are no present plans for a meeting such as my hon. Friend suggests. I think the negotiations must be settled in Brussels. I do not think my hon. Friend is right in saying that they have run into difficulties—in this sense, that there is no reason to be surprised that there are many critical matters now taking some time to resolve. I am sure the whole House will agree that it is much better to get the right solution slowly than the wrong solution quickly.
    Mr. Marten: But if defence and sterling have to be on the agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) wishes—
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I did not say that.
    Mr. Marten: Well, I understood my hon. Friend to say that, but I will withdraw that, and put the question like this. As the purpose behind going in is very largely political, is it not time that the future political structure of Europe was added to the agenda in the negotiations? At the same time, if the Community is to be enlarged, would my right hon. and learned Friend at some time take steps to see that the official language to be used is English?
    Mr. Rippon: Certainly, the political advantages of enlargement are overwhelming, but that is not a subject for discussion in the negotiations. If we became a member of an enlarged community, English would be an official language.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 29 other Questions on the Order Paper dealing with the Common Market.
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    4
    Affairs if he is aware that United Kingdom imports of butter from New Zealand have increased from an annual average of 12,000 tons in 1900 to 1909 to 119,000 tons in 1930 to 1939 and 168,000 tons in 1961 to 1970; and, in view of this, if he will seek permanent arrangements for the continuation of this trade in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: We have tabled proposals on New Zealand dairy products asking for some form of continuing arrangement, subject to review.
    Sir R. Russell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if continuing arrangements are not obtained the Government will not sign the Treaty of Rome?
    Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend would be wise to await the outcome of negotiations, and then he can make his decision.
    Mr. Hattersley: During previous negotiations great fears on this score were expressed because of what was then called the "butter mountain"; that is to say, a permanent surplus of butter in the Community. What is now the position of the so-called "butter mountain"?
    Mr. Rippon: It is certainly much smaller than it was. There has actually been a shortage of butter in some countries. I imagine that the position will change considerably over the years, and there is a great weight of opinion which believes that as the agricultural structure of the Community changes in years to come there will be a great demand for dairy products from New Zealand.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that during the 1962 negotiations the present Prime Minister negotiated special arrangements covering New Zealand? Is he further aware that negotiations to deal with the New Zealand problem which were confined to the transitional period were regarded in many directions as unacceptably insufficient?
    Mr. Rippon: We have made it perfectly clear to the Community that, broadly speaking, the problems that remain to be settled in negotiation are transitional problems, except for New Zealand dairy products and sugar from

    5
    the developing countries of the Commonwealth, which the Community has already agreed with me are special problems.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland regarding the procedure to be adopted at the conclusion of negotiations with the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: We are in regular consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic, and will continue to consult them as the negotiations proceed.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake that at the conclusion of negotiations the British people will have the same rights as the Irish people to comment upon and, if necessary, to veto any terms offered?
    Mr. Rippon: The British people will have the rights which the British people enjoy under the British constitution, and there will be no difficulty about that.
    Mr. Churchillasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the benefits Commonwealth Caribbean States may expect in the event of their becoming associated with the European Economic Community under a Yaoundé-type Convention.
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what benefits associated status would bring to the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean if they were to accept offers of association with the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: The precise benefits would depend upon the terms of association when these are negotiated. Associates of the existing Yaoundé Convention enjoy the benefits of a considerable measure of free trade with the Community. They also qualify for aid provisions from the European Economic Community amounting, over the period of the Convention, to 1,000 million United States dollars.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement
    6
    is welcome to the House and to our Commonwealth sugar-producing friends and allies in the Caribbean, who stand to benefit substantially from association, as did the former French overseas territories? In the wider sphere of British membership of the European Economic Community, will not the fact that Britain is playing a major rôle in Europe and, through Europe, in the world, as France has done in recent years, give far greater benefit to other Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Rippon: That is certainly my firm belief and the belief of many people in the Commonwealth. We are still pressing the Community for the repetition of the 1963 Declaration of Intent in respect of the independent developing countries of the Caribbean and certain other developing countries in the Pacific. The West Indies Associated States have already been offered associated status under Part IV.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the great concern in the House about the Caribbean, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the Caribbean Governments have been consulted in the negotiations now taking place, and will he say in detail how we intend to protect the vital interests of the Caribbean?
    Mr. Rippon: They are consulted. I have consultations here with representatives of the Caribbean Governments, and many Ministers have visited us here. After every Ministerial meeting I have consultations in Brussels with the High Commissioners. I visited the Caribbean in February. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a clear understanding between us of what we are seeking to achieve. I cannot go into details on these complex matters of the way in which we are seeking to protect the interests of the Caribbean countries, Mauritius and Fiji especially in respect of sugar.
    Mr. Body: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that sugar is not the only commodity grown in the West Indies? Other commodities will be in real danger unless they are supported by commodity agreements.
    Mr. Rippon: It is important that we should get the 1963 Declaration of Intent repeated so that there may be the offer of association, or some other appropriate

    7
    trading agreement, between the enlarged Community and these countries. I know my hon. Friend is concerned about this. It applies particularly to bananas, where we would seek within association to provide for our traditional suppliers the same treatment as the existing members of the Community accord to their traditional suppliers.
    Mr. Foley: Do the Government intend to press for a revised Yaoundé Convention, including the Caribbean and other Commonwealth countries, and to make a contribution to the European Development Fund on the same lines and of the same dimensions as France and Germany?
    Mr. Rippon: I imagine that within an enlarged Community there would be discussions about how we dealt with association in the years beyond 1974 and how we developed new world commodity agreements on a broader basis within the framework of other international agreements. Certainly we would wish to do that. We would be contributing to the European Development Fund on an appropriate basis. As I have said before, we not only would be able to aid our present clients through that fund but could maintain bilateral aid as well where that was appropriate.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what change there has recently been in the political aims of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to make it clear that the exaggerated fears about loss of sovereignty resulting from British membership of E.E.C. have no basis in fact?
    Mr. Rippon: I believe that they are false arguments. There is no reason for anxiety about that. We should be pooling sovereignty to no greater degree than we have already shown ourselves willing to do in N.A.T.O., Western European Union, the International Monetary Fund and a host of other international treaties.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, quite apart from any further develop-
    8
    ments in the political context, it is entirely clear to anyone who reads the Treaty of Rome and has the capacity to understand its provisions that membership will involve a loss of sovereignty unprecedented in the history of this country?
    Mr. Rippon: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has the capacity to understand the Treaty, so I am slightly surprised at his comments. I assure him that if we join the enlarged Community at its present stage we shall at every point have the opportunity to determine how far and how fast we are prepared to go in association with the other States, bearing in mind that on all major issues of sovereignty there would have to be a unanimous decision.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the Minister is right, why will he not agree to an independent investigation of the facts to see which legal gentleman is right, and publish the report? Secondly, will he give an assurance that we on this side of the House will be able to raise whatever questions we wish to raise as we do now, subject only to Mr. Speaker and to the Orders of the House?
    Mr. Rippon: In the last few weeks the hon. Gentleman has asked several hundred Questions and we have done our best to answer them. We will continue to do so.
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the examination of necessary secondary legislation in the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: A group consisting of representatives of the applicant countries and the Communities has since September, 1970, been examining the secondary legislation in force in the Community. About 70 per cent. of the instruments in force have been examined, and the technical adaptations to these instruments, which will become necessary in the event of our accession, have been agreed.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister able to give the House any guidance as to the amount of secondary legislation which will be required? For example, could he estimate the amount of legislative time that will be available for entirely

    9
    domestic matters once we accede to the Treaty of Rome, if we do?
    Mr. Rippon: There will have to be a discussion in this House in an appropriate form over many of these matters. I cannot say how much time the House will take over it. Much of it may be agreed without difficulty.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from France about the future of the sterling balances in relation to the European Economic Community.
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether discussions about the United Kingdom's economic prospects and the future rôle of sterling now form part of the formal negotiations over the United Kingdom's entry to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: The French Government have made no representations of this kind to Her Majesty's Government. From the outset it has been made clear that economic and financial matters such as those referred to would not form part of the formal negotiations but that they would be discussed in an appropriate forum.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it now Government policy to phase out the sterling balances?
    Mr. Rippon: We had some discussion of this rather technical matter in the debate in July, and I recommend the hon. Gentleman to look at that.
    Mr. Pentland: The Minister will recall that he and the Prime Minister have at all times informed the House that the question of sterling and the political implications involved in our acceptance of the Treaty of Rome would not be matters for discussion during the present negotiations. Can he assure the House that this is still the case?
    Mr. Rippon: That is what I have just said.
    Mr. Bodyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what figure he now considers a reasonable and equitable contribution to
    10
    the budget of the European Economic Community in the first year of any transitional period of entry for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rippon: I have nothing at present to add to the statement I made to the House on 16th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 1354–70.]
    Mr. Body: I expected that to be the answer that I would receive. Would the Minister not agree that in describing the present offer he is reported as having used the words "reasonable and equitable" and Sir Con O'Neill to have used the words "fair and generous"?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that on 16th December I said I thought our offer to be fair and reasonable. I also added on that occasion that I thought the Community thought that it was too fair and too reasonable. That of course, is what the negotiations are all about.
    Mr. Moyle: As the Government consider that in domestic terms 10 per cent. increases are too high, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply the same criteria to any increases negotiated in our contribution to the European budget?
    Mr. Rippon: That does not seem to be a very consequential observation.
    Mr. Blaker: Whatever figure may be agreed eventually for our contribution, surely it cannot be in the interests of the Community to impose intolerable burdens on our economy.
    Mr. Rippon: That is the basis of our argument. It would be a great tragedy if the Community sought to impose upon us such short-term burdens as would deprive us all of the manifest long-term advantages.
    Mr. Shoreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what revised estimates he has made of the annual costs of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community and of Great Britain's contribution to it.
    Mr. Rippon: These matters are under constant review. I made a statement on this subject on 16th December, and the matter was discussed in the debate on 20th and 21st January. But any

    11
    attempt to quantify the costs of British membership of the Community must depend upon the outcome of the negotiations.—[Vol. 808, c. 1354–6; Vol. 809, c. 1401–12.]
    Mr. Shore: My Question asks not only about the estimates of Britain's contribution but about the estimates of the revised costs of the Community's expenditure on agriculture. I have in mind the fact that the Six met only two or three weeks ago to review prices for this year. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman no information on that matter?
    Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we are here dealing with a point of enormous importance and that the costs here have risen from something of the order of £600 million a year C.A.P. as recently as 1966–67 to over £1,200 million last year, and that this further estimate of costs is of crucial importance?
    Mr. Rippon: Certainly the Community has made what I think will be found broadly to be a helpful review in the context of the negotiations, particularly its proposals for carrying forward the restructuring of Europe's agriculture. But what we are concerned about is the budget from 1973 to 1978, and much of the discussion about the size of Britain's possible contribution turns to a large extent on the size and shape of the budget in those years ahead and what our likely receipts might be.
    Mr. Marten: If the advantages of going into the Community cannot be quantified until the terms are known, how can all these European-minded people tell us what the economic advantages are before the terms are known?
    Mr. Rippon: No one has any doubts about the advantages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They are well known and understood in the Community. No one in the Community has doubts about the advantages. I know that there are doubts in this House, and I hope that we shall satisfy them in due course. Certainly we shall do our best. I am afraid that it is impossible to produce estimates of the costs, as distinct from the potential advantages, until we have concluded the negotiations or taken them much further forward.
    Mr. Deakins: Why is not the United Kingdom concerned about the size of the Community's budget after 1978?
    Mr. Rippon: We are, of course. I referred specifically to 1973 to 1978 because that arose out of the statement on 16th December when we were dealing with the transitional arrangements. But a lot depends on the size and shape of the budget, our receipts from it and what the likely consequences will be. These matters are much better assessed in the later stages of the negotiations.
    Mr. Deedes: On the balance of costs, are there not influential voices in the Community which want more of the Community budget spent on non-agricultural purposes? Is there not some benefit to be derived thereby?
    Mr. Rippon: The estimates that I have given are based on an estimate of our likely receipts on the basis of the budget as it is today. The Community says that, as it restructures agriculture and as a higher proportion of its budget is devoted to regional and industrial policies, we shall get the higher benefit that we ourselves have suggested.
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the European Economic Community makes available to its associated states.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): As the reply is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Maclennan: While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he can say briefly how the effort of the Community in this direction compares with our own?
    Mr. Wood: It is very difficult to make a comparison. Apart from the bilateral aid, there is the aid to the Yaoundé countries and to the associated countries, Greece and Turkey. It is very difficult to compare them briefly. However, the hon. Gentleman may be able to make some comparison when he has read the whole answer.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not a strong argument for British membership of the E.E.C. the fact that if we became members we would be in a position to have an aid programme on the level, perhaps,

    13
    of that of France, which is very much higher than our own?
    Mr. Wood: We shall continue our bilateral programme and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has said, no doubt we shall be making a contribution to the European Development Fund. The aid programme, anyhow, will be increasing in the years to come.
    Mr. Cunningham: In view of the fact that nearly all the money in the European Development Fund is distributed to countries with very small populations, is not a factor, though a very small one, against our joining the Community that we would be contributing additional sums for distribution to the very small countries which might be balanced by taking funds away from countries like India with large populations?
    Mr. Wood: I do not agree. Our contribution to the E.D.F. will have to be considered when we have discussions at the end of 1973. I see that our programme to India is likely to be maintained in the future.
    Following is the information:
    E.E.C. Aid to its Associated States
    Apart from the assistance which member states provide bilaterally, the Community's collective aid to its associated states is of two kinds. First, aid provided under the Yaounde Convention to the African Associated States and Malagasy through the European Development Fund. Most of this is in grant form but it includes both soft loans from E.D.F. and standard loans from the European Investment Bank. Secondly, aid provided to Greece and Turkey, which are associated under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome and are not entitled to assistance from the Fund, but which are eligible for loans from the European Investment Bank.
    2. Details are as follows:

    E.E.C. AID TO ITS ASSOCIATED STATES

    1. AFRICAN ASSOCIATED STATES AND MALAGASY

    U.S. $ million

    Funds available

    Grants Commitments

    Disbursements

    (As at 30.6.70)

    1st European Development Fund

    581·2*

    483·0

    439·3

    2nd European Development Fund

    620·0

    597·8

    289·0

    3rd European Development Fund

    748·0

    —

    —

    14

    U. S. $ million

    "Soft" loans from European Development Fund managed by European Investment Bank

    Funds available

    Commitment

    Disbursements

    (As at 30.6.70)

    1st European Development Fund

    —

    —

    —

    2nd European Development Fund

    46·0

    44·5

    6·1

    3rd European Development Fund

    80·0

    —

    —

    Standard loans from European Investment Bank

    Funds available

    Commitments

    Disbursements

    (As at 30.6.70)

    1st European Development Fund

    —

    —

    —

    2nd European Development Fund

    64·0

    46·8

    23·0†

    3rd European Development Fund

    90·0

    —

    —

    Figures for commitments and disbursements from the 3rd European Development Fund not yet available.

    * To be shared among all the Overseas Countries and Territories listed in Annex IV of the Treaty of Rome including Dependencies.

    † Possibly includes small element (maximum $2 million) for Dependencies (which are not associated states).

    2. COUNTRIES ASSOCIATED UNDER ARTICLE 238 OF THE TREATY OF ROME

    ($ million)

    European Investment Bank Standard Loans

    Commitments

    Disbursements

    (As at 30.6.70)

    Greece

    …

    …

    69

    53

    Turkey

    …

    …

    172

    94

    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he will not inform the countries of the Six at the negotiations to be held in Brussels on 11th May that Great Britain can give no definite answer until she has reported the negotiations to be held on 11th May to the European Free Trade Association meetings to be held in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May.
    Mr. Rippon: Decisions on the conduct of our negotiations with the European Economic Community must remain the

    15
    sole responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. There will no doubt be a full discussion at the E.F.T.A. meeting of the positions reached by the E.F.T.A. members in their negotiations and discussions with the Community.
    Mr. Lewis: We are used to getting these evasive replies, but, since the Minister and the Government have said that they mean to keep our E.F.T.A. partners fully consulted on these matters, why cannot he give an assurance—it is only a question of a few days—that he will come to no decisions on these matters until such time as he has at least reported the conversations and negotiations to our E.F.T.A. partners? Subsequently we would obviously take our own decision, but what harm could there be in a few days' delay?
    Mr. Rippon: I have made the position clear. We are constantly in touch with E.F.T.A. representatives in Brussels, and as soon as that meeting is over I shall be going to a meeting in Iceland to talk to E.F.T.A. Ministers. We have consultations all the time, sometimes at Ministerial level and sometimes at official level. There is no difference between us. I hope that the hon. Member fully under- stands that it was one purpose of the Stockholm Treaty—which shaped E.F.T.A.—to bring about an end to the economic division of Europe.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress now made in negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progess of negotiations for the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: I have at present nothing to add to my statement of 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sooner the negotiations are completed the better, because of the substantial advantages which British membership of the Community will bring to the British Commonwealth and the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Rippon: That is certainly our purpose, and we shall go ahead on that basis.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is it not time that this preposterous fiction that negotiations about sterling are not part of the formal negotiations was abandoned? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not make a statement on this subject—because the negotiations in sterling are so clearly central to the whole negotiations—instead of leaving hon. Members to rely too much on leaks that appear in the Press?
    Mr. Rippon: It is not fiction; it is fact.
    Mr. Biffen: Is it the expectation of my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government will be in a position to recommend to the House a view one way or the other before we rise in August?
    Mr. Rippon: As I have indicated to the House, I hope that we shall make substantial progress at the next round of Ministerial meetings in May. I shall report to the House when that has happened. We can then begin to form a judgment as to how matters are proceeding.
    Mr. Jay: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now about E.F.T.A., will he at least give an assurance that we shall not reach any settlement with the E.E.C. which would involve the re-erection of tariffs between the present members of E.F.T.A.?
    Mr. Rippon: That has been a matter of considerable discussion between the members of E.F.T.A. We are not concerned to end the economic division of Europe by erecting new barriers.

    Departmental Staff, London
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements in working conditions for Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff based in London have taken place in the last four months.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Some improvements have been made which are designed to make conditions more comfortable for the staff pending a decision on the reconstruction or rebuilding of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    Mr. Blaker: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the improvement he has mentioned, may I ask him whether he will recall telling me in December that he was not satisfied with the working conditions of his Department and confirming that the Department is housed in no fewer than 13 different buildings? Has there been any progress particularly in reducing the number of buildings?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that my hon. Friend will know that I am immensely interested in this subject. My interest is to see that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is housed so that the work of diplomacy can be carried on efficiently. It is not possible to do this now as efficiently as I would like, so I would like to get on with the improvements.

    Rudolph Hess
    Mr. Neaveasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the detention of Rudolf Hess.
    Mr. Rippon: I have nothing further to add to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 15th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 206.]
    Mr. Neave: For how long will this pointless and cruel detention be allowed to continue? A man who is quite unfit for solitary confinement has been in detention for more than 30 years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Russians that we do not intend to behave like Nazis and intend to take action ourselves to release Rudolph Hess?
    Mr. Rippon: The British Government have made their views known—not only this Government but the previous Government. We share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend and also expressed in a debate in another place on 25th March, 1970. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that we must have regard to what is the most appropriate time and place to make further representations.

    South Africa (Arms Supplies)
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the sale of arms to South Africa in addition to Her Majesty's Government's legal obligations.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 19th April.—[Vol. 815, c. 803–4.]
    Mr. Lyon: But, in addition to the speculation about the sale of frigates, there have now been reports that the South African Government wish to obtain certain kinds of equipment, like radar and so on. Is there any truth in this speculation? Has any order been received from the South African Government? Has any application been received that they should be allowed to have licences for such equipment?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of what is now happening in Ceylon, the necessity for the closest association with South Africa within the defence context is re-emphasised and that the wisdom of the policy which he has adopted is increasingly evident?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is certainly the case that when Mrs. Bandaranaike asked us for immediate help for her Government in relation to insurgency in Ceylon, we were able to produce it from Singapore.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: As there is no legal obligation to supply further arms to South Africa, could we be given an undertaking that we will not do so?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no legal obligation, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have an undertaking.

    Sinai Peninsula
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will move to obtain an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the juridical status of

    19
    the ex-Turkish territory in the Sinai Peninsula.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): No, Sir. We do not consider that the juridical status of this territory is in doubt.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: However that may be, is it not a fact that Sinai was Turkish territory which was attached to Egypt by Great Britain by right of conquest after the First World War because it was convenient to Great Britain at the time? Is there not a very good case for demilitarisation of Sinai and the establishment of whatever régime seems appropriate to avert a renewal of Egyptian aggression against Israel?
    Mr. Kershaw: Whatever the case about the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the fact is that this frontier did exist in 1906 and was confirmed by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend in a speech in Harrogate last October as being a sensible dividing line if one had to continue these negotiations further.

    Soviet Union (Treatment of Jews)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now give instructions to his officials to make representations to the Soviet Government on behalf of Jewish people detained in Soviet psychiatric hospitals or hospital wards for the mentally sick, because of their efforts to leave the Soviet Union in accordance with the Declaration of Human Rights.
    Mr. Kershaw: I have every sympathy with persons, whether Jewish or not, who would like to leave the Soviet Union but are prevented from doing so. However, we have no formal standing to make representations to the Soviet Government on their behalf, and I am not persuaded that such representations at present would be helpful to them.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to an unspecified number of people of many religions who are locked up in mental hospitals because of their wish to leave the Soviet Union, 23 men and women who wanted to leave the Soviet Union for Israel have been con-
    20
    fined in prison for over seven months awaiting trial on unspecified charges? Is he further aware that these people are named on the Order Paper of this House. Could he not find some way of bringing to the attention of the Soviet authorities the concern felt on all sides of the House?
    Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 22nd February how concerned we were. The hon. and learned Gentleman also will have noticed since then, on 2nd March, the British delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in New York has made a statement appealing to the Soviet Union to behave in a different way.
    Mr. Longden: Could my hon. Friend say why we continue to trade with the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Kershaw: That is rather a different question.

    Banana Trade
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place a copy of Lord Denning's report on the banana trade in the Library of the House for the confidential information of members.
    Mr. Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken on the report made to him by Lord Denning about the banana dispute between Jamaica and United Fruit.
    Mr. Kershaw: The two parties, which I am glad to say have now reached agreement, wish the report to remain confidential. I respect their wishes and, therefore, do not propose to place copies in the Library. We have, of course, been in close touch with the Governments of Jamaica and the Windward Islands about the report.
    Mr. Moyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a little late to take that line in view of the fact that the Govern-men have been releasing little tit-bits of information about the report tactically at opportune moments over the past few weeks? Would he not agree that this country should be taking action to protect our banana supplies from Jamaica

    21
    and the Windward Islands, irrespective of what the United Fruit Company believes, in the event of our joining the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already dealt with that matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made proposals in Brussels to safeguard the banana trade.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Under-Secretary has failed to deal substantially with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the fact that information from the report has been placed in newspapers, according to the best evidence because of Government action on this matter. Since this is happening too often—I do not know whether the Prime Minister was informed about this incident—would he consider the possibility of publishing the report rather than leaking parts of it to newspapers?
    Mr. Kershaw: I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not much! What about Vehicle and General?

    Court of St. James's (Diplomatic and Ancillary Staff)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of accredited diplomatic and ancillary staff at the Court of St. James's.
    Mr. Kershaw: The number is 4,473, Sir.
    Mr. Hastings: Has my hon. Friend noticed various recent reports, which so far as I know have not been denied, to the effect that 40 per cent. of the Soviet Embassy staff belong to the notorious K.G.B.? Have we really enough secrets to go around? If they are not after military secrets, what precisely are they up to? Does my hon. Friend not think it time to review this whole matter and to suggest to the Soviet Government that they take these people away?
    Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that we do not have any limit to the number of diplomats who are accredited here except in one case; that is to say, the Russian Embassy.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Could not the explanation be that the K.G.B. find it much more agreeable to live in London than to live in Moscow?
    Mr. Kershaw: I do not know how intelligent the K.G.B. is—I understand that they are not very intelligent—but I should have thought that was a good idea.

    Jamaica
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to make an official visit to Jamaica.
    Mr. Rippon: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have plans at present to do so.
    Mr. Cunningham: In view of the very serious damage to relations with Jamaica that the banana dispute has created and of the further damage which may be done if we join the Common Market and no protection is given, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his answer and consider having further discussions with the Jamaican Government and making the effect of those discussions public so that we can be sure what safeguards are provided for our important banana trade with the West Indies?
    Mr. Rippon: I visited Jamaica in February, and I reported to the House about that visit. Since then I have had further discussions with the Jamaican Minister of Trade. We are in close touch about all these matters.

    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional aid is to be given to the Turks and Caicos Islands, particularly for infrastructure, following the visit of the Minister of State.
    Mr. Wood: An outline development plan is being prepared by consultants under British technical assistance arrangements. This advice will have a bearing on the future level of aid, but in any case I expect to increase it.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: As I found on a recent visit to the still dependent territories how much the islanders appreciated my right hon. Friend's visit and his extension of the aid which was started by

    23
    the previous Government, may I urge my right hon. Friend, on the basis of my own commercial experience, that without permanent sea and air communications there can be no proper development of these islands? Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that there are permanent sea and air communications before long?
    Mr. Wood: My right hon. Friend will be grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. As for the future, I am awaiting the report of the consultants, and, obviously, this is a very important aspect of it.

    Tanzania (Pensions)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in his discussions with the Tanzanian Government with regard to the payment of pensions of former servants of the Zanzibar Government.
    Mr. Wood: The Tanzanian Government have now told me that they recognise no obligation in regard to these pensions, and I am considering the position further in the light of this reply.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that originally many of these pensions were paid by the British Government, and after independence an agreement was reached with the Sultan handing over responsibility for the payment of pensions? Now, as my right hon. Friend says, that that agreement has been abrogated, surely responsibility must revert to Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Wood: Clearly, the obligation rests, as it did after independence, on the present Zanzibar Government. But there is no practical way of compelling the payment of these pensions, so I am considering the situation to see what can be done.
    Mrs. Hart: Has the right hon. Gentleman's obvious difference of view on this matter with the Government of Tanzania any relation to the fact that the programme of aid to Tanzania which was supposed to have started last July still appears not to have been begun?
    Mr. Wood: No. It has no connection.

    Voluntary Service Overseas
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    24
    Affairs what is the number of British citizens who are currently engaged in activities abroad sponsored by Voluntary Service Overseas or other similar organisations; and what steps are currently being taken to encourage an increasing number of persons to participate in this work.
    Mr. Wood: About 1,900, Sir. The organisations concerned are continuing their recruiting efforts, which are reaching a wide range of potential volunteers.
    Mr. Hardy: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the Government should greatly increase the level of their support for this activity not merely because great benefit is conferred upon the recipient but because the experience which the young volunteers gain is extremely worth while?
    Mr. Wood: The main responsibility for finding the volunteers rests on various individual voluntary societies, but the Government will always give support from the point of view of the benefit both to the developing countries and to the volunteers.
    Dame Joan Vickers: As the combined number of overseas aid students is 25,000, does my right hon. Friend not think that Great Britain is playing a great part in sending 1,900?
    Mr. Wood: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's remark.
    Mr. Mayhew: While I endorse the tributes which have been made to this excellent work, may I ask the Minister to take this opportunity of denying Press reports to the effect that the demand for these volunteers has considerably decreased?
    Mr. Wood: It has not decreased in general. Greater emphasis is now put, probably rightly, on the need for graduates and specialised volunteers, and they now fill the larger proportion of the total.

    Developing Countries (Private Investment)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have yet decided on the measures to be taken to

    25
    encourage private investment in the developing countries.
    Mr. Wood: The Government's decisions are described in a White Paper that is being published today. They include the introduction of a scheme for insuring overseas investment against noncommercial risks, and various proposals for using official aid in support of private investment.
    Mr. Tilney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on adopting a policy which has been urged on successive Governments by some hon. Members for many years.
    Will the premium be based on business rather than on political principles, and will it vary according to the treatment of old investment in the developing countries?
    Mr. Wood: Questions relating to the investment insurance scheme should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will be concerned in the next few weeks with working out the precise details.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that although these proposals might be useful in stimulating private investment, this will still fluctuate, for reasons outside the Government's control, that they are no substitute whatever for meeting the target for official aid approved by the United Nations, and that we cannot guarantee to reach a total flow of at least 1 per cent. of G.N.P. until we reach the target for official aid of 0·7 per cent. of G.N.P.?
    Mr. Wood: As the right hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the White Paper, the proposals are directed to increasing the flow of private investment. That in itself must be good, and I think he would support it. Questions about the size of the official aid programme can be tabled, and I shall do my best to answer them.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the important thing to increase the flow of aid, which the Government's measures are intended to do, and, all things being equal, is it not more desirable to have this flow from private rather than from public sources?
    Mr. Wood: My view is that both sources are important and that one can do things which the other cannot.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the Minister explain why on this important White Paper, which contains at least two or three new policy proposals, one of which we very much welcome—the proposal for investment insurance is sensible; as he knows, it was under study in our time, but the others are distinctly controversial—he has not chosen to make a statement so that we can question him thoroughly, and will he indicate to the Leader of the House that this is an urgent reason for a debate on these matters?
    Secondly, by what criteria will developing countries be defined for the purpose of pre-investment help and official budget aid for infrastructure as outlined in the White Paper? Will they be the countries to which we give aid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long!"] Mr. Speaker, if the Minister chooses not to make a statement when he issues a White Paper—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not good enough. The right hon. Lady's question must be fairly brief.
    Mrs. Hart: If I may continue to put my second question to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask by what criteria the developing countries will be defined? Will the countries be those to which we already give aid, or will the criteria be the generally internationally accepted criteria according to the level of income, which would mean that we could be giving pre-investment help to private investment in Greece and Spain?
    Mr. Wood: The length of the right hon. Lady's question has demonstrated that there should be an opportunity of debating this matter, perhaps on the Adjournment one night, when I should be delighted to give a reply. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will no doubt have heard, or will read, her question and will make his decision.

    Overseas Civil Service (Education Allowance)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the education allowance for those in the Foreign Service is substantially higher than for members

    27
    of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service; and if he will now bring the allowance for the latter into line with the former.
    Mr. Wood: Greater help is given to members of the Diplomatic Service in educating their children because members of the Overseas Civil Service normally spend longer periods in one place.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the increasing fees which have to be paid for boarding school education in this country lead to a great deal of unhappiness between members of different services serving in the same territory for some period?
    Mr. Wood: I understand the difficulty of increasing school fees. Many people are affected by them. The difference arises from the Plowden Report, which made a distinction between the Diplomatic Service, on the one side, and the Overseas Civil Service, on the other.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future aid talks with Pakistan; and whether he will consult with other aid donors so as to make further aid dependent upon a cease-fire in East Pakistan.
    Mr. Wood: We should normally have had talks with the Pakistan Government and other aid donors at a meeting of the Pakistan Consortium in July. As it is, we shall have consultations with other donors before then, and the conditions for further aid will certainly be considered.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members would normally oppose the use of our aid programme to impose political conditions upon a recipient country? Nevertheless, if the conditions in East Pakistan are so appalling, this is an exceptional case. In view of the thousands of people who have been slaughtered and the imminent threat of famine in East Pakistan, will the Government consider consulting the other aid donors to impose some basic minimum conditions on the Pakistan Government before fresh aid pledges are made?
    Mr. Wood: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has announced, we are ready to participate in any international effort for relief in East Pakistan if asked to do so. As I have already said this afternoon, we are ready, and, indeed, we have plans, to consult the other donors about conditions of future aid as soon as we can.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend inform me whether the aid programme was maintained throughout the period of the Nigerian Civil War? If so, as I believe, surely it is appropriate, in view of the necessity for rehabilitation in the eastern wing of Pakistan and the severe overstrain on the economy of West Pakistan to maintain the aid programme?
    Mr. Wood: We are anxious to maintain the aid programme if we can, but the conditions on which we do so must be resolved.
    Mr. Shore: Does the Minister agree that there is a distinction between a relief programme to deal with famine and other consequences which no one would wish to interrupt or interfere with, and the more normal economic investment programme which in this case is probably a suitable vehicle for making it clear to the Pakistan Government that we want to see proper changes in East Bengal and in the political situation there as a condition for continuing it?
    Mr. Wood: I appreciate the distinction between relief and other programmes. We have a programme which we were in the process of implementing in East Pakistan, and I should like to continue that programme in conjunction with other donors and the World Bank as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the Minister consider two points? The first is that there is probably an urgent need for relief in India where the refugees from East Pakistan have been going so recently. Will he, therefore, consider the need for an immediate relief operation there? Secondly, will he give details, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Of the precise projects at present under way in East and West Pakistan respectively, because in the light of the very much lower standard of living and G.N.P. in East Pakistan there are many on this side of the House who would wish us to concentrate on projects in East Pakistan?
    Mr. Wood: I shall certainly do my best to provide the information for which the right hon. Lady has asked.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his review of the question of arms contracts with Pakistan.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have reviewed the position, which is as I informed the House on 29th March. No contracts have been signed since 1967 with the exception of one for refitting a naval vessel and another for radar equipment. There is none in prospect.—[Vol. 814, c. 1149.]
    Mr. Barnes: Although Britain is a small supplier of arms to Pakistan, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when a Government use arms that they have acquired from other nations for external defence in the appalling way in which the Government of Pakistan did against their own people, surely it is the concern of all nations in the arms-supplying business? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britain should have reacted immediately in far stronger terms to what happened in East Pakistan than she did?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We reacted very quickly to the horrible events that took place in Pakistan—but these events do take place in civil wars. As for the hon. Member's Question, I have reviewed the position. There are not outstanding contracts of any significance. I shall keep the matter under review, but I see no reason to alter Her Majesty's Government's policy now.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend been in contact with the military or Ministerial representatives of Pakistan in the course of the present S.E.A.T.O. conference? As Pakistan is a S.E.A.T.O. ally of ours, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the military capability of Pakistan, which is a linchpin of that alliance, is maintained as far as possible?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Pakistan is a S.E.A.T.O. ally, as my hon. Friend says. The Question referred to whether I have reviewed the questions of arms contracts to Pakistan. The answer is "Yes",
    30
    and I am satisfied that we need not change our policy now.

    Ambassador to U.S.A.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recall Lord Cromer, Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members found the maiden speech of Her Majesty's Government's Ambassador at the Press Club in Washington thoroughly offensive and partisan—matched only by the odious statement of his wife that saving face means so much more to an Asian than does life? Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that he proposes to do nothing about this offensive conduct?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I repudiate the suggestion that Lord Cromer has been indulging in party political propaganda. What is more, I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been more generous in their recognition of the wisdom and discretion which Lord Cromer was always willing to give them when they were in office.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us very much resent an attack of this sort on a superlatively able ambassador, and that the only thing that can ever be urged against Lord Cromer is that his prestige and skill as Governor of the Bank of England saved the Labour Government in 1965?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not taken the measure of this matter, and that the supplementary question asked by his right hon. Friend shows how partisan a person Lord Cromer is thought to be by hon. Members opposite? Does the right hon. Gentleman further realise that after these remarks by Lord Cromer and his wife it will be impossible for anyone on this side of the House, or for our supporters in this country, to regard him as representative of the country rather than of the Conservative Party?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I regard that as totally unworthy of the right hon.

    31
    Gentleman. Lord Cromer is a representative of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and happily so, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not.

    Canada (United Kingdom Citizens)
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Canada to secure no less favourable treatment for United Kingdom citizens in respect of terms and conditions of entry, registration, residence, employment, settlement and voting rights than are accorded to Canadian citizens in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Kershaw: None, Sir. We accept that all sovereign countries, like ourselves, have the sole right to determine whom they should admit and on what terms.
    Sir F. Bennett: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the right of each sovereign independent country of the Commonwealth to settle its own immigration policies. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that Britain bears favourable comparison not only with Canada but with every other country in terms of its treatment of immigrants not only before they come here but also after they have arrived here?
    Mr. Kershaw: That is so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear.
    Mr. Kaufman: If there is to be parity between British and Canadian citizens in these matters, can the hon. Gentleman say what group of citizens he is suggesting the Canadian Government should discriminate against in the same way as French-Canadian citizens will be discriminated against by this Government under the patrial Clause of the Immigration Bill?
    Mr. Kershaw: I do not accept any of the premises which the hon. Member has made.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that Britain's immigration policy—including the provisions of the current Immigration Bill—is of unparalleled generosity compared with the immigration policies of other Commonwealth
    32
    countries? In order that good relations may continue between different racial communities in Great Britain, will the Government draw this fact to the attention of responsible leaders of immigrant communities in this country, who sometimes organise demonstrations against our policy and criticise our police in relation to that policy?
    Mr. Kershaw: It is a fact that our immigration policy bears comparison with that of any other country, including Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is it not a fact that the Immigration Bill is more likely to be regarded as unparalleled nonsense, in view of the fact that the patrial Clause has been mucked about as a result of the initiative of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
    Mr. Kershaw: No, Sir.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, he will now seek to prevent the further slaughter of non-combatants by American forces in Vietnam.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As Geneva Co-Chairman I intend to continue my efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam which will put an end to all killing. It is the Communist refusal to co-operate in peace talks that is blocking progress to a settlement.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is now such considerable revulsion in the United States against this war that recent public opinion polls have shown that a very large majority are in favour of immediate, unconditional withdrawal? In these circumstances, will he not renew his endeavours to play some part—about which he can talk publicly—to produce a peaceful solution to this long-drawn out and horrible war?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not accept the hon. Member's interpretation of opinion in America, but, leaving that aside, I cannot act as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference unless the Soviet Foreign Minister will do so as well. So far he has declined.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: How many times have my right hon. Friend and his predecessors asked their Co-Chairman to reactivate the Geneva Conference, and how often has that request been refused?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A great number of times.

CEYLON
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the safety of British subjects in Ceylon.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): On 11th April, a United Kingdom national, Mr. Paul Wonnacott, who was touring on a motor bicycle, was shot at and killed by insurgents in North Central Ceylon. I am sure the House will join me in sympathising with his relatives.
Mr. Dalyell: Is the slaughter in Ceylon on the scale which it is made out to be by Mr. James Sterba in the Scotsman and on the scale indicated to some of us by Ceylonese Students? Are we altogether happy about the supply of arms? Is the Foreign Office happy that the nomenclature "Maoist intruders" should be given to those who may have a genuine economic grievance? Finally, might we not at least try to act as a mediator before we have an incipient Nigeria-Biafra situation on our hands?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: These questions are always difficult to decide. As this was an uprising of extremists who began by destroying some 30 to 50 police stations in Ceylon, I felt that when Mrs. Bandaranaike asked for some immediate help it was right that we should give it. I will keep the situation closely under review of course. Mediation is not required by the Ceylon Government, who are determined, if they can, to eradicate these extreme insurgents in their country.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Could my right hon. Friend say a little more about the assistance which has been rendered by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to Her Majesty's Government in Ceylon—because it is still Her Majesty's Government? Is it not a little surprising that the Ceylon Govern-
34
ment should show this coy attitude towards the helicopters which have been made available by this country? Should there not be a little more frankness in these matters?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mrs. Bandaranaike, I think yesterday or the day before, gave public recognition to what this country had done in Ceylon in the early days of this rising and expressed her own gratitude and the gratitude of her country.
Dame Joan Vickers: Is there any coordination between the various countries which have been called in to give aid to Ceylon? Have their duties been outlined?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A very difficult question will arise soon about aid to Ceylon; as my hon. Friend knows, there was a great strain of the Ceylon economy even before this matter began. The International Bank has looked into this matter of the foreign countries which give aid. I will certainly see whether we can co-ordinate the effort.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission, I should like to make a statement. The Government have considered with great care the Roskill Commission Report—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is all in the papers.
Mr. Davies: —the views expressed in recent debates in both Houses of Parliament and the many representations made by a wide range of interests on the siting of the third London airport.
The Government have now taken certain basic decisions about the need, timing and location of the airport.
It is the Government's aim to encourage the development of aviation and to maintain Britain's share of civil aviation in the international field. The Government accept the unanimous recommendation of the Commission that a third London airport will be needed and that the first runway should be operational by about 1980. They consider that additional airport capacity is required in the South-East, not only to meet the

35
inevitable increase in air traffic now foreseen, but also to bring relief at the earliest practicable date to the noise and environmental problems created by the existing airports in the region. The Government endorse the Commission's assumption that there would then be no need to provide additional runways at other airports in the London area. An airport outside the region would not meet the need. It would involve unacceptable risks to defer the provision of a third airport on the basis of speculative technological developments such as short takeoff and landing, or to plan on the assumption that future needs could be met by a site incapable of expansion over time to a full four-runway capacity.
The Government have power to regulate the use of British Airports Authority's airports in the interests of the reduction of noise; I propose to consult airport owners immediately about the inclusion of provisions in the current Civil Aviation Bill to extend these powers in due course to other airports where noise is a serious problem.
Secondly, the Government have weighed with care the economic arguments identified by the Commission which indicated an inland site, and the regional planning and environmental issues which the Commission also identified. As the Commission's report stressed, on environmental and planning grounds the Foulness site is the best, and the Government have concluded that these considerations are of paramount importance. In the Government's view, the irreversible damage that would be done to large tracts of countryside and to many settled communities by the creation of an airport at any of the three inland sites studied by the Commission is so great that it is worth paying the price involved in selecting Foulness. The Commission has clearly indicated that the Foulness site has its economic and environmental disadvantages.
The Government are confident that an airport at Foulness will meet the needs of aviation, despite the economic penalty involved. Speedy means of access and efficient operation can reduce this penalty, and the use of the new airport would be encouraged by stricter limits on movements at other airports. Such limits, which the new airport would make pos-
36
sible, would help to reduce noise at existing airports. It will be open to the British Airports Authority so to arrange charges between its airports as to stimulate traffic at Foulness. On these assumptions, which differ from those made by the Commission, the new airport can be expected in time to make a proper return on capital invested there, though it may not become self-supporting as quickly as one at an inland site.
A start will now be made on the planning of the new airport at Foulness. We shall have particularly in mind the precise location of the runways in the light of all the relevant cost, operational, noise and environmental factors.
Proposals have been made for a joint development at Foulness with participation by private capital involving as well a seaport and associated industrial development. The Government are examining the concepts involved. Meantime plans will be made for the airport on a basis that will not rule out a seaport and associated development being fitted into the site if this proves desirable.
The construction of the airport at Foulness will entail the early relocation of the Ministry of Defence Establishment at Shoeburyness. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has announced that the proposal before him to move the establishment to Pembrey will not be proceeded with. The Government are considering alternative arrangements and will shortly consult the local authorities and other bodies concerned.
The Secretary of State for the Environment will now proceed to discuss urgently with the various authorities concerned the scale and location of the urban development which the airport will involve and the action needed to secure it. The planning of the necessary road and rail links will be put in hand. All this, with the airport, will present over the next decade a great opportunity for imaginative integrated development.
These decisions, dealing as they do with the larger part of our air traffic, will provide a basis on which studies can be pursued to establish the desirable pattern of airport development in the rest of the country.
Mr. Crosland: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having confirmed everything that we have been reading in the Press for some weeks past. May I say in passing that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is becoming the leakiest in recent history.
I believe that the Government are, on balance, right to have rejected the three Roskill inland sites. I think they are also right to have rejected a second runway at Gatwick. But the choice of Foulness is totally wrong, on the ground of damage to environment, and particularly the coastline; on the ground of destruction of homes for motorways; on the ground of enormous additional cost; and probably also on the ground of safety.
I have three questions to ask the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he give the Government's estimate of the additional cost of going to Foulness? Will he make it clear how the Government propose to compensate the British Airports Authority for this extra cost? Secondly, since we are not to have the first runway at Foulness till 1980, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have totally ruled out the alternative solution which I and others have put forward, of searching for an alternative coastal site for a two-runway airport combined with a crash programme of aid for S.T.O.L.? The right hon. Gentleman's statement is unduly sceptical about S.T.O.L.
Thirdly, since I prophesy that Foulness, if it is ever built at all, will turn out to be the white elephant of the century, because airlines will not use it, what credence are we to attach to assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has given about reducing the noise at existing airports? Is it not likely that the residents of these areas will become the victims of a gigantic confidence trick, and will not his decision turn out to be the worst of all possible decisions in terms of the noise effect?
Mr. Davies: In response to the first of those three questions, as to the Government's estimate, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Roskill Commission estimated the excess cost, in total terms, of choosing Foulness against one of the inland sites as of the order of
38
£150 million all told, discounted to 1982. I do not think the Government are seeking to dispute the Commission's calculations, and recognise that these costs will as a result fall on the air traveller in paying for the additional transit. The Government consider, however, that the cost, heavy as it is, is justified in environmental terms. I should like to stress that in speaking of these figures of cost, I am not talking of the construction cost of the airport, nor of the roads and railways to it, which are broadly speaking of the same level whichever of the sites would have been chosen.
On the second question of an alternative coastal site, the great problem, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that whilst we have been waiting for years for a decision on this subject, if we once again postponed a decision, opening up all the uncertainty which would be involved, the extent of blight, generally speaking, would be very serious and really unacceptable.
On the secondary question in that same relationship, all my advice is that we would be most unwise to rely on short take-off and landing aircraft as a way out of this difficulty within the reasonable future, and it should not be regarded as a criterion which would enable us to evade our present decision.
As to the third question, I confidently believe that we shall have Foulness airport, and I firmly mean that we shall, and it will indeed produce the relief for noise trouble from London's airports which is at the moment such a serious matter.
Sir S. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who is unfortunately engaged upon the business of the House abroad and therefore cannot be here, and myself are particularly affected by his decision? May I therefore ask three short questions?
First, is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will give great concern to a large number of constituents, and will he give urgent consideration to siting the airport, if it ever goes there, well to the north-east of the site considered by the Roskill Commission?
Secondly, is he aware of the danger, and that only last week there was a

39
general alert at Southend Airport when one aircraft was struck by one goose? Does he realise that there are thousands of geese on the Maplin Sands?
Thirdly, is my right hon. Friend aware that although the two local authorities particularly concerned, the Southend County Borough Council and the Essex County Council, have given their blessing to an airport in their area, the residents in the area have never been consulted, and, if they had been, they might have come to a very different decision? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, give them an opportunity to express their point of view, instead of their point of view being represented by others?
Mr. Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) would certainly have amplified those remarks had be been here.
On the first question, I realise the grave concern to which my hon. Friend refers and I will take into account what he says about the siting of the runways. In any case, this will be a matter for urgent study in connection with the total project study now to be undertaken.
On the subject of bird hazard, I recognise that there is a greater bird hazard at Foulness. I simply point out, however, that there are two factors involved here. On the one side, there is the safety of the people in aircraft, which is undoubtedly more at hazard in those circumstances, but the site chosen represents in such circumstances less hazard to residents on the ground than would have been involved at one of the inland sites.
As to residents' views, I am prepared to believe that they are far from happy. The trouble is that whatever site had been chosen, this would inevitably have been the case. I am very conscious of the fact that the Government have had a difficult judgment to make and they have tried to make the best one in all the circumstances.
Mr. John Morris: Having regard to the decision not to proceed to reprovision the Ministry of Defence, Shoeburyness, facilities at Pembrey, could the Secretary of State tell the House what steps the Ministry of Defence have taken to provide reprovisioning? Will it occur at
40
one particular place? Who will bear the extra cost? Will the Ministry of Defence be able to move out in good time? Who will bear the total cost, estimated at £25 million, for the repro-visioning of Defence facilities?
Mr. Davies: The Ministry of Defence is now taking these two problems into consideration. I do not know that it will necessarily prove to be the case that a single place will accommodate the whole of the activities which were formerly at Shoeburyness, and they may be divided.
As to the cost, it is a factor and one which has been taken very much into account in the calculations which have been made. From the Ministry of Defence point of view, the choice of Foulness was certainly the least of the evils of the alternative choices which the Commission faced.
I can give a broad assurance on time. It seems probable that the change of location for the Shoeburyness activities can be achieved within the time scale necessary to allow the airport to develop.
Mr. Morris: Who will bear the cost?
Mr. Davies: It will be through the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Now that the decision has been taken, can my right hon. Friend relate the provision of the road and rail links to which he refers coming into operation with the airport, and would he accelerate them as far as possible, and in particular the advanced passenger train service, so as to diminish the possible disincentive to the use of the airport apprehended by the Commission because of the length of journey time to the airport and consequent cost, and so confound the gloomy prognostication of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) as to the possibility of a white elephant?
Mr. Davies: Yes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already had certain conversations, and we shall pursue them urgently with the British Railways Board and with other interests concerned. As I said earlier, I thought this presented us with a great opportunity to achieve an imaginative and venturesome project, which includes the whole of the transport side of this operation, the possibilities of which are of great importance.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Luton Airport, which is not a British Airports Authority airport, is likely to attract a good deal of the traffic before the third London airport is built, if it goes to Foulness? Will he therefore, in the light of his colleagues' recommendations in regard to Luton Airport and its environmentally excessively bad sites, take powers in the new Civil Aviation Bill to restrict traffic at non-B.A.A. airports, such as Luton?
Mr. Davies: I mentioned that I would be in consultation with those concerned with a view to introducing additional measures within the framework of the present Civil Aviation Bill to cover the potential restraint of capacity in relation particularly to noise, over and above that of the British Airports Authority airports.
Mr. Hastings: First, is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of people in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex and Hertfordshire will feel immense relief at this wise, but very difficult, decision? Second, may I congratulate him and, through him, also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the particular part he and his Department have played in the decision? Third, will he accept that whatever side we may have been on in this controversy, there will be universal sympathy for those likely to suffer as the result of the airport going to Foulness? Fourth, does my right hon. Friend accept the Roskill timing of need, or is he prepared to go ahead with the project as fast as possible? Fifth, would it not be possible to have the first runway ready as early as 1975, and is not that the only way to bring effective relief of some kind to the existing airports at Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick?
Mr. Davies: I am very doubtful, indeed, of attaining any date as early as 1975, but we will make as quick progress as we can. We have very much in mind that our primary objective must be to reduce the very serious noise problem in and around London.
Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that part of his statement indicates a considerable subvention from public funds to infrastructure in the South-East and that the subvention implies the creation of a MIDAS in that
42
area which might have detrimental effects in other regions? Will he reinitiate the development of MIDAS plans in other parts of the United Kingdom, including areas on the Clyde and on the Tay?
Mr. Davies: I fully understand the hon. Member's preoccupation. I reaffirmed in my statement that the heavy cost involved in making this choice will have to fall primarily on travellers and not on the public allocation of expenditure.
Mr. Sandys: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement that it is the Government's intention to take further measures to reduce aircraft noise, may I ask him whether, when considering the long-term planning of airports for short take off and, eventually, vertical take off aircraft, the advantages of this method of take off will not be accepted as a justification for siting airports of this sort either inside or very close to towns? There will undoubtedly be a temptation to do so.
Mr. Davies: I will certainly keep the point that my right hon. Friend makes very much in mind.
Mr. Tinn: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us feel that the second London airport, that at Gatwick, is still under-utilised? Since he referred to steps being taken by use of charges by the Airports Authority to ensure that the third London airport will be fully utilised, why cannot such measures be used to ensure that Gatwick is fully utilised and the noise nuisance to West London inhabitants resulting from Heathrow be thereby reduced? If it will work in one place, why not in the other?
Mr. Davies: I will certainly take those views into consideration, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that already the pressures on me in relation to the use of Gatwick are very great and, I know, even greater still on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Crouch: Does the Secretary of State realise that I am absolutely appalled by this decision of the Government? Who do the Government listen to these days

43
—[Interruption.] Do they listen to high-pressure public relations groups or engineering contractors, or fail to listen to the Roskill Commission which, by a vote of five to one, recommended against Foulness?
And what about the nationalised industry most directly concerned, the British Airports Authority, which has stated to the Select Committee, of which I am a member:
"Th most disadvantageous site was Foulness because of its inaccessibility (as reflected in traffic forecasts which in turn would adversely affect revenue and profitability)…"
I ask my right hon. Friend to try to give the House some assurance that in the short time the Cabinet has considered these matters it has reflected on these views, already given over a long period.
Mr. Davies: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that the amount of time which the Cabinet and other bodies in Government have spent on this is very considerable, and has now lasted over months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Years."] I therefore cannot accept that a negligible degree of attention has been given to the matter.
The Government listened to all those who, for one reason or another, have to give advice, and have had to assess the weight of that advice, and thereby reach the conclusions they have reached. It may be some alleviation of the concern I realise my hon. Friend expresses to say that the whole question of the exact location of the runways on this site will obviously have a very important bearing on the noise hazard, and this will be very clearly borne in mind in the study which is made.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be very glad on this occasion to have his confirmation of the Press reports which preceded his statement by several days; and that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in taking some exception to Foulness was a personal one, as the matter has never been discussed collectively on this side of the House?
As the Secretary of State has said that this airport is not likely to be ready until
44
1980, will he take especial care to see that during this long period there is not an intolerable build-up at Heathrow? Those under the glide path at Heathrow will, I am sure, welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but will he watch very carefully what is done between now and 1980?
Mr. Davies: I am in close proximity to the hon. Gentleman in terms of residence and, in personal terms, I have the matter deeply at heart. I can assure him that I have very much in mind possible measures which can be taken to limit the problem of noise.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but it is quite clear that I shall not be able to call all those hon. Members who want to put their views to the Secretary of State. We had better proceed.
Later—
Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Before you cut short the questioning of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the question of the third London airport, I understood my right hon. Friend to say that, because of the siting at Foulness, there would be an increased hazard to the lives of people in aircraft and of people on the ground because of the dangers from birds. As this is a very serious matter, can you enlighten me as to how it will be possible for those hon. Members whose constituencies lie under the flight of aircraft which might crash to bring this matter to the attention of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I fully accept that this is a serious matter. In my view of the statement made by the Secretary of State, nothing will happen very quickly. There will be plenty of opportunity for all these points to be raised. I have no doubt that those concerned will pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

VEHICLE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Mr. Roy Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Leader of the House when we may expect a further statement about the Vehicle and General

45
matter? It must surely be the Government's view that last Thursday's statement in no way quietened public anxiety; on the contrary, it greatly increased it. There is some surprise that there is no statement today. Can we at least have an assurance that there will be a statement tomorrow touching grave matters of public concern far wider than the prosecution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and touching the question of the Government's administration, and of the protection of the policyholders, which was not done? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be able to say that a Select Committee—because I think that nothing else will satisfy public disquiet—on this matter will be announced?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It would not be for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman in some of his remarks other than to say that I am grateful to him for having raised the subject and, I hope, enabled me to give some assurance to the House. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not yet completed his inquiries but hopes to do so in the very near future. As soon as he has done so and has made his decision about a possible criminal prosecution, I undertake that a further statement will be made immediately to the House.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are matters far wider than the question of a criminal prosecution, matters which surely there can be no question of the Attorney-General investigating, such as the competence of Ministers. Will he say when a statement about this is to be made to the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I made the assurance perfectly clear. The point to establish is whether or not there is to be a possible criminal prosecution. I have undertaken that that will be decided in the very near future and that immediately thereafter a statement will be made to the House. I do not anticipate that it will be very long before that statement is made.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a prosecution, by the rule of sub
46
judice, would rule out a very great many questions which we need to have settled in the House. Is it not very important that it should be made clear, for instance, when the Prime Minister was first informed of the leak and of the institution of police inquiries into it?
Mr. Whitelaw: If I am to answer the question, I am not making any such suggestions. All I am saying is that before a further statement should be made it is right that, first, one should see whether or not a prosecution is to be undertaken.
Mr. Speaker: Strictly, this was not a point of order, but I allowed the right hon. Gentleman to put the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has made a statement. I cannot allow a debate on that statement now.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House assure us that he, or someone else, will not come to the House in the near future and say that a prosecution has been started and that the matter is sub judice and, therefore, try to pretend that the other much wider question cannot be discussed?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will feel on reflection that that is a slightly unworthy suggestion as to what I have been saying. I have been doing my very best from the start to make absolutely clear to the House that my interest is to ensure that this House should have the fullest possible information at the earliest possible moment. I wish to make that absolutely clear. I am saying no such thing. I am saying only that the right course is first to establish whether or not a prosecution is to be made. Irrespective of what decision is made in that matter, I undertake that a further statement will be made to the House as soon as possible. I thought that I had made that clear in the first instance.
Mr. Carter Mr. Carter rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to put the Chair in difficulty in this matter. This is not really a point of order but discussion of the business of the House. It is appropriate to a Thursday. I allowed the right hon. Gentleman because I thought that it would be to the convenience of the

47
House. But we cannot have a debate now. Mr. Arthur Lewis.
Mr. Carter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Leader of the House aware that since last Thursday I have received upwards of 100 telephone calls, some of which contained the most wild and speculative rumours concerning the leak? How can the House have any confidence in the remarks of the Leader of the House—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the point of order—perhaps I may regret having allowed it—because it related to the business of the House. I cannot have any discussion now about the merits. It is a question of when a statement should be made and in what circumstances.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I address the point to you and not to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Arthur Lewis for a point of order.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise an entirely different subject. In anything I say I make no reflection on either the Official Reporters, who we know do an excellent job, or on the Chair and its present occupant.
May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to last Friday's HANSARD at column 1594. You will see there a reference to a Bill which was brought from the Lords. You yourself were in the Chair at the time, and you will no doubt recollect that the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading which was moved by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). As is customary according to Standing Orders, the House was then requested to allocate time for the further procedure to be followed, in this case the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Hove said "Friday next", but before he made that remark I rose and said "Now, Sir", to which you, Mr. Speaker, said that as the hon. Member for Hove, who was in charge of the Bill, had asked for further proceedings on Committee stage next Friday, I could not then move "now".
48
My point of order is that no reference to that is in HANSARD, although it will be in your recollection that that took place. This was the only Bill on that day which was from the Lords. It was not a Private Member's Bill for which a Member had won the ballot. This was a Bill which the hon. Member for Hove, rightly, had voluntarily agreed to sponsor, or to take over, which is customary. My point of order is that I understand that it is in order immediately after Second Reading to move that the next stage is taken, in this case the Committee stage. Indeed, If hon. Members wish, all the stages can be taken, Committee, Report and Third Reading, the point being whether the House gives its consent.
On Friday there was no objection when I moved that the Bill be further proceeded with. I agree that had an hon. Member so objected the Bill would have stood over. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) had an example of this happening a few weeks ago. On the first occasion the House did not give its consent for further proceedings to be taken, but the following week the Bill went through Committee, Report and Third Reading on the nod.
I am not being critical in any sense of the Chair when I say that nothing can prevent the House proceeding as it wishes, provided that Standing Orders are not contravened or any attempt is made to usurp the authority and power of the Chair. In this instance, the power of the Chair was not involved. The only Standing Order which has a bearing on this matter is Standing Order No. 50. Page 42 of the 1969 edition, which has not been altered since 1969, refers to consideration of a Bill which has been brought in into a Committee of the whole House. But this had not been brought into a Committee of the House because, with respect, you had prevented that procedure taking place.
Obviously, I am not trying to upset anything that was done last Friday, but I think there is a question of principle here and the procedure should be established for the future. First, if this is not recorded in HANSARD and a similar incident were again to occur there would not be the opportunity of referring to HANSARD and, second, if the Chair has the authority to deprive the House of rights which are laid down in Standing

49
Orders that should be clearly understood, because in future the same or a similar situation may well arise.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this at your leisure, because there is more to this than you probably can give your attention to on the spur of the moment, although I have given you a little notice of this matter. I ask you to consider this as a matter of general principle for the future. I make no adverse comment about what happened last Friday.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would seek to raise this point of order and also for the way in which he has put it. What happens at four o'clock on a Friday is not without its pitfalls, particularly for a fairly new occupant of the Chair: things go very quickly all of a sudden.
I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. On one matter I am prepared to rule immediately. If the day is named by the Member in charge of the Bill I must accept that day and no other hon. Member can put forward another day. I will consider the rest of the hon. Gentleman's statement and rule upon it, if necessary.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has as its main purpose the pruning of the social security system, on the one hand of some abuses that have crept in and, on the other, of some elements, entirely justifiable in the past, which have become obsolete or in need of amendment.
  I will take the House through the relatively few Clauses of the Bill and explain as briefly as I courteously and helpfully can the purpose of each.
  Clause 1 and 2 together alter some of the rules governing the arrangements for supplementary benefit. Clause 1(2) deals with a person disqualified for up to six weeks from unemployment benefit because he has committed industrial misconduct, left his job voluntarily, or refused suitable work without good cause. If such a person disqualified from unemployment benefit for what is in general called "industrial misconduct" were to be able to make good the loss of unemployment benefit for those six weeks simply by claiming full supplementary benefit entitlement, there would be no effective sanction whatsoever.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Dear, dear.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The Secretary of State's opening tone in talking about penalising people who are unemployed and not having a sanction against them at present epitomises what the Bill is about.
  Sir K. Joseph: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay more attention both to the Bill and to what I say about it. We are discussing in Clause 1(2) people who under a long-standing law—
  Mr. Orme: We know about the law.
  Sir K. Joseph:—are voluntarily unemployed; they have lost their jobs

  51
  through what is called industrial misconduct.
  Mr. Heffer: The Secretary of State must understand that some of us on this side have had experience of this matter. Is he not aware that many workers, particularly in small establishments, are constantly pressurised by their employer or foreman and their life is made intolerable? Such workers then leave their place of employment because of the circumstances and find they cannot receive unemployment pay. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that workers suffer that indignity every day of the week?
  Sir K. Joseph: The provision for any deduction from supplementary benefit is subject to the discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I am sure that in such cases as the hon. Gentleman refers to a deduction would not occur. Under this subsection we are dealing with a situation where the Commission in its discretion already applies a deduction of 75p for up to six weeks. In the Government's view, such a deduction is too small; it is derisory. It is applied by the Commission in its own discretion. It would not be proper or right for the Government to ask the Commission to vary its discretion. Therefore, we are taking this decision out of the Commission's hands by requiring under this subsection that the deduction for industrial misconduct should be 40 per cent. of the single householder adult rate at maximum, namely, £2·05 for up to six weeks instead of 75p as now. The benefits for wife, children and rent will not be affected in any way.
  The calculations given to me are that about 10,000 people at any one time are affected by this deduction, over half—probably two-thirds—of whom are single men.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Does not the Secretary of State realise that in one and the same breath he has said that it would not be right to ask the Commission to vary its discretion downwards and that the Government propose to get round that difficulty by abolishing the discretion? We are taking the right hon. Gentleman up on the first point before we reach further points, because he seems to be talking in terms of punish-
  52
  ments and sanctions for industrial misconduct. In many instances industrial misconduct is a highly disputed event and is only a formula. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about punishments or sanctions in such cases. These people are not criminals.
  Sir K. Joseph: Nobody is accusing them of being criminals. The Commission will retain the discretion as whether to apply a deduction from supplementary benefits. If the Commission in its knowledge of the facts decides to apply a deduction, it is to be a deduction, if the House approves the Bill, of £2·05 at maximum instead of 75p.
  Dame Joan Vickers: My right hon. Friend has mentioned single men. How will single women with dependants fare?
  Sir K. Joseph: Single women with dependants will be subjected to a deduction, if there were to be a deduction and subject to the Commission's discretion, of the maximum for a single householder rate. The benefits for a dependant and for rent remain untouched. There is a limit of six weeks. In case hon. Members opposite are feeling uncomfortable about this provision they will no doubt be aware that this proposal was made by their own Government, at a deduction to rise from 75p to a third instead of 40 per cent., which this Government have decided.
  Mr. John Mendelson: They were equally wrong.
  Sir K. Joseph: It is a comfort to the Government to feel that on this matter the two Front Benches agree that something has to be done.
  I turn to Clause 1(4) and Clause 2 which deal with the amount of supplementary benefit payable during and after trade disputes. One of the first things that this Government set in hand after the election was a review of the arrangements for the payment of supplementary benefits to the dependants of those involved in trade disputes. As the House knows, supplementary benefit, including rent, is payable for the dependants of claimants who are disqualified by Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, because of a trade dispute from having their own personal

  53
  requirements far supplementary benefits met.
  The Government have decided that for the present at least the main principle embodied in that legislation should continue unchanged. This is not to say that the Government may not decide at some stage to make some changes. A large number of people whose views are entitled to respect believe that the right to strike is often exercised irresponsibly and that it is unreasonable that the taxpayer should be expected to help finance strikes by men whose normal earnings are often quite sufficient to enable them to finance the strikes themselves.
  There are others who do not go so far as that, who think that at least those who can afford it should repay, after the strike is over, the money provided by the taxpayer for wives and children. I have always sought to keep supplementary benefit payment to strikers' families in perspective. There is no supplementary benefit entitlement for the single striker. Probably about 20 per cent., no one knows the precise figures, of all strikers are single and they get no help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission except in very rare cases of real hardship during a strike. Such people in any one strike can be numbered virtually in handfuls. In general supplementary benefit is not payable for the first two weeks of a strike because the men and women concerned are still entitled to earnings from the employer. Of course the Post Office strike was a dramatic exception to the rule. Because of the arrangements of the Post Office, supplementary benefit came into payment in the very first week.
  I am still reviewing the reasons why I think we have to keep supplementary benefit payments to dependants of strikers in perspective. Some 90 per cent. of trade disputes are over in two weeks. Up to this year only about 20 per cent. of those involved in strikes lasting more than two weeks had claimed supplementary benefit. With supplementary benefit on its present basis most workers' households suffer a sharp fall in net income when they draw supplementary benefit during a trade dispute.
  All of these factors remain true but it is no longer possible, because of these factors, to shrug aside the scale and possible implications of supplementary bene-
  54
  fit payments connected with trade disputes. I want to give the House two new facts. We have no firm statistics for 1971, but so far as I can estimate the proportion of all strikers who have received supplementary benefit for their dependants has leapt from a figure of the order of 2 per cent. over recent years to 25 per cent. so far this year—because of the most unusual Post Office experience and the Ford strike.
  The second new fact is perhaps even more startling. In the first four months of 1971, £3¾ million has been paid out as a result of large trade disputes alone—more than the total of all supplementary benefits paid out in connection with strikes from the end of the war until the end of 1970. In the first four months of this year more supplementary benefit has been paid out to the dependants of strikers involved in large disputes than in all the time since the end of the war.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Does this figure include the "tide-over" payment after resumption of work?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes it does.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rejecting the language of propagandists who talk about financing strikes by State funds. Now he seems to be moving close to it. He is the Secretary of State who has to defend the right of people who have paid contributions, as the Guardian pointed out in a leader the other day, for dependants who are in need of resources today. Surely he knows that the whole concept of financing strikes is fraudulent because under existing legisation only those in dire need are allowed to receive supplementary benefit payments for specific purposes.
  Sir K. Joseph: It remains true that there is a very great difference between the insurance benefits for which people pay contributions and the situation in a strike where men and women, for their own personal purposes, for a greater or lesser time, are without earnings. The purpose of the supplementary benefit system is to mitigate hardship. People voluntarily, for their own purpose, choose to do without earnings. I have spelled out the factors which have to be taken into account and the new scale that we are now witnessing. I have taken

  55
  into account, as one who has been scruplous in emphasising the relatively small proportion of payments made to strikers' dependants in the past, the change of scale we are now seeing. In these circumstances the least that we can do is to make certain that Parliament's decision about supplementary benefit entitlement for the families of strikers should be adhered to.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman talks about scale and uses the Post Office strike as a decisive part of his argument. That was an official strike which ran for a long period of time this year. Is he not thereby directly coming down in a political way on one side in an official trade dispute? Does this not rob the Government of any vestige of independence in this matter?
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman talked about the Post Office strike being an official strike and it was. But we normally would expect in an official strike that some strike pay would be made available. Here was a union which embarked upon a strike without strike pay and therefore to a greater extent than would be normal the men and women concerned turned to supplementary benefit. They were entitled to do so.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Of course they were.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am entitled to point out that what used to be the old relationship, with a very small proportion of strikers' families getting relatively small sums of money from the taxpayer is changing and is rapidly escalating to something totally different.
  Mr. James Sillars: The Secretary of State talks about what happens when a strike takes place, that is, when the men withdraw their labour. What happens when a lock-out takes place?
  Sir K. Joseph: Precisely the same as has always happened when a lock-out takes place. Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act passed by the former Government governs a lock-out just as much as a strike.
  Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, is the latest statutory embodiment of the principle that supplementary benefit shall not be paid for
  56
  personal requirements to a claimant disqualified because of a trade dispute. As is well known, the supplementary benefit position resulted from the long-standing practice of the National Assistance Board of ignoring, in its discretionary powers, any personal resources of such a claimant such as tax refunds, strike pay, up to £4·35 a week—the full amount of a claimant's personal requirements. This practice, which the S.B.C. inherited from the National Assistance Board has nullified Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966.
  Clause 1(4) of this Bill, therefore, provides that such resources shall be disregarded only to the extent of £1. That is the normal disregard for other people in this situation. The result will be that there will be a cut of £3·35 a week in household income of a person connected with a trade dispute whenever such a household has tax refunds or strike pay of £4·35 or more. Those who receive strike pay, whether their earnings are high or low, will be affected by this cut, but they will be affected by it only to the extent of conforming to the intention of Parliament in passing Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966.
  The present disregard brings in benefit to the low-wage earner provided he receives strike pay. I have inquired about the proportion of strikers who receive strike pay. No clear figure can be given me, but I have been told that about 95 per cent. of strikes are unofficial, so that prima facie it is expected that only about 5 per cent. of men who strike get strike pay. That may be slightly on the low side because often such official strikes as there are tend to continue longer. Therefore, probably 5 per cent. is the bottom of the likely bracket. The point I am making is that the low-wage earner will not be affected by this cut unless he receives strike pay, since he obtains no tax refund. There is no extra resource to be disregarded apart from strike pay. In that sense therefore, the low-wage earner will not be affected by the change we are proposing.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: May I put a purely factual question? Presumably the low-wage earner to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring could be receiving family income supplement which the right hon. Gentleman has

  57
  introduced. Can he say what would be the position of the man who goes on strike? Does he continue to receive family income supplement? That is one question. The second question is, is the £1 of family income supplement disregarded, if it is being paid, or not? What is the situation?
  Sir K. Joseph: Family income supplement? The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in setting very difficult questions, but I will try to answer off the cuff, certainly the first question. It is paid unconditionally for 26 weeks. It is granted unconditionally. As to the second question, I should like to give a provisional reply only because I may be wrong. Family income supplement implies that a man is receiving in effect less than supplementary benefit. Therefore, the supplementary benefit will be subject to a wage stop. For family income suplement one has to bear in mind the complicated interaction of the erstwhile wage stop, family income supplement and supplementary benefit. What I think I had better say to the hon. Gentleman, however, is that my hon. Friend will answer that if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker; or I will request him to put the question down.
  A single person—I am going through the people who will be affected by this cut in supplementary benefit—will not be affected because the single person is not entitled to supplementary benefit in these circumstances, anyway.
  At this stage I should tell the House, so that there will be no thought that I am concealing part of the background, that we are not modifying the grade and class or financing disqualifications as was recommended by the Donovan Commission. We have decided against carrying out these recommendations at the moment because, in our view, this is not the time, when strikes are so frequent, to make a change which could facilitate manipulation of the National Insurance Fund by the withdrawal of a few key workers.
  I turn now to the second change in the application of supplementary benefit to those concerned in trade disputes. Suddenly, since 1969, a new way of exploiting the supplementary benefits scheme has been developed. As the House knows, the normal way by which
  58
  people maintain themselves and their families after returning to work at the end of a period of interruption of work, whether due to unemployment or sickness or a strike, is by way of a sub from the employer, particularly where the individual worker is known to the employer. In these cases any sub from the employer was recoverable after the first 15 days after return to work. In cases where the employer was unwilling to sub workers returning after the strike, payment was made of supplementary benefit to support those workers' families. But as I have mentioned to the House, since 1969 a strange development has occurred.
  More and more people have realised that, whereas the sub from the employer is repayable—that is to say, it is merely on account of future earnings and comes out of taxed income—supplementary benefit is neither repayable nor taxable, and so at a steadily accelerating rate men and women have been actually discouraged from taking subs during two weeks after a return to work at the end of a trade dispute and have been turning to the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  The result has been dramatic. In 1964, the total paid out by the Supplementary Benefits Commission after trade disputes had ended was some £4,000. Last year, the equivalent figure was very nearly £900,000, and for the first one-third of this year, the rate of increase had accelerated again and had reached £430,000. This is an abuse which no Government could contentedly accept. Therefore, Clause 2 provides that a payment of supplementary benefit made during the first 15 days to people returning to work after a trade dispute shall be recoverable through the employer. Clause 2(5), coupled with Schedule 1, protects earnings so as to ensure that the repayment through the employer shall not be at such a rate, or on such a scale, as to apply to any household with less than £2 above the supplementary benefit level for that household.
  Mr. Orme: Does that also apply to the worker in a plant who comes out because of a trade dispute due to other workers taking strike action in the same plant, so that he is thrown out of employment through no fault of his own? Is it applicable to him?
  Sir K. Joseph: This is why I went out of my way to explain that we are

  59
  retaining the grade and class and financing disqualifications—for the reason I gave. So the hon. Gentleman is precisely right. I hope that the change of law proposed will remove the abuse and that once the availability of supplementary benefit on a non-repayable basis and tax-free has been removed, workers will be content to revert to the traditional practice of accepting subs to tide them over the period after a trade dispute.
  We cannot tell what the supplementary benefit changes will save. The amount will vary according to the number of trade disputes, the number of people engaged on them and other relevant factors. I can only tell the House as a guide that, if the Bill had been law during 1970, the taxpayer would have saved about £1¼ million. Had Clause 1 been in effect during the Ford strike, the supplementary benefit paid to the families of the strikers—and the House will remember that there was both strike pay and in many cases, but not all, tax refunds—would have been cut to about one-third of the amount that was paid out.
  Clause 3 enables a small pocket of duplicate payments of social security benefits to be closed. Clause 4 provides for inspectors the same powers of entry to business premises in connection with suspected supplementary benefit frauds as already exist with respect to suspected national insurance frauds. Clause 5 provides for reciprocity with Northern Ireland as regards supplementary benefit. Clause 6 extends the scope for reciprocal agreements on social security matters with other countries. I will come back to Clause 7.
  Mr. O'Malley: Clause 6 is rather unusual. I understand that if a foreign citizen comes into the country and finds himself in difficulties he is entitled to receive help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. British citizens who go overseas where supplementary benefit type systems exist do not at the moment get the same advantage as a foreigner coming to this country. Is the purpose of the Clause to ensure that they do?
  Sir K. Joseph: I am looking unashamedly at my crib. In particular, we should be enabled by the Clause to come to an agreement to make supplementary benefit paid in one country reimbursable
  60
  from arrears of insurance benefit that afterwards become payable for the same period from the other country. In other words, just as in this country restrospective payments of national insurance can be paid over to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to compensate it for supplementary benefit paid in advance of national insurance benefit becoming payable, so the Clause enables us to make similar arrangements between our supplementary benefit fund and the national insurance equivalent of other countries, and vice versa. The hon. Gentleman will be able to enjoy himself in Committee on this Clause.
  Clause 8 increases the maximum fine for failure to pay contributions from the £10 fixed as long ago as 1911 to £50. Clause 9 ends the life of the local advisory committees. Clause 10 deals with the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
  Clause 7 is an important Clause. Subsection (1) abolishes the retrospective payment of unemployment or sickness benefit for the three waiting days, and means that for periods of interruption of employment beginning after the appointed day benefit will never be payable for the first three days in the period. The change relates to flat rate benefit only. There never was a three waiting days period for earnings-related supplement, which begins only after 12 days interruption of employment and is not therefore affected. Subsection (2) does exactly the same for industrial injury benefit.
  I was much cross-examined by hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friends, after the Bill was published about the effect of Clause 7. There was widespread concern on both sides of the House that people would be hit by this withdrawal in the most vulnerable days immediately after the start of a bout of unemployment, sickness or industrial injury. I emphasise strongly that that is not what happens. The present rules which we are changing do not give anyone any benefit during the first days of sickness, unemployment or industrial injury. What is being taken away by Clause 7 is not protection during those early days but retrospective payment for those first three days more than two weeks and often as long as 13 weeks later.

  61
  The House will realise that the waiting days can be accumulated during a 13-week period. An insured person may have two days off sick and then go back to work, and another two days off seven weeks later. The four days can be added together provided that they occur during a 13-week period and so on, so that the retrospective payment for those first three waiting days can come as long as 13 weeks after the first bout starts. I do not want to mislead the House. The bulk of cases last two weeks straight off—three weeks perhaps—and the retrospective payment therefore occurs in the third week.
  There is no doubt that when the National Insurance Scheme was founded the retrospective payment for the first three days made good sense. In any national insurance scheme it is virtually impossible to put an insurance benefit into the hands of the beneficiary within a day or so of the start of the bout of unemployment, sickness or industrial injury. This is not how a national insurance system works. A mass of paper is involved, and it would be hideously expensive administratively to make arrangements to meet immediately the needs of someone who was unemployed or sick. The immediate needs of any household are met, when necessary, by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  Since the inauguration of the national insurance scheme together with the retrospective payment for the three waiting days, there has been a transformation in the position of the bulk of the work-people. Earnings have multiplied, net disposable personal income in real terms has rocketed. Whereas in 1951, 28 per cent. of married women brought earnings into the household, now, 45 per cent. of married women do so. Savings have increased. National insurance benefits have increased. Redundancy payments are now available in many cases. Employers' sick pay schemes cover a substantial proportion of the working force, and earnings-related supplement comes into payment for over 70 per cent. of those still hit by unemployment, sickness or industrial injury in about the third week of any bout. On all these counts there is more "fat" available out of which most people can bear the first few days.
  Mr. Orme: It is all relative.
  Sir K. Joseph: There is more reserve out of which most people hit by unemployment—where redundancy payments are available—sickness and industrial injury can support themselves during the first few days than there was 23 years ago. Often, retrospective payment of benefit for waiting days means a tax-free bonus when the person concerned has returned to work. There is even the possibility of a suspicion that the prospect of retrospective payment for waiting days could sometimes conceivably be a distorting factor tempting some people to prolong a spell of sickness. No one knows for sure, but it may be a factor.
  Often retrospective payments coincide with the start of earnings-related supplement coming into payment. I would emphasise that the lowest paid are not affected by the change since the lowest paid would never be able to wait for sickness benefit, unemployment benefit or industrial injury benefit to come into payment. They would not have the reserves or the resources to do so. They would have had to go immediately on supplementary benefit. There will be no change in that situation. The retrospective payment which will be taken away if the Bill is passed would not have come to the low paid as an extra. It would simply have been set off against supplementary benefit.
  Mr. John Mendelson: They are entitled by their contributions.
  Sir K. Joseph: I shall deal a little later with the seated intervention of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). The result of Clause 7 is that in a full year there will be a gross saving to the funds of about £22 million.
  Mr. Orme: For the benefit of the surtax payer.
  Sir K. Joseph: The surtax payer does not benefit from these changes. We are dealing with the National Insurance Fund and this represents a saving of £22 million to those Funds. There will be £3 million extra public expenditure, £2 million of which will represent a drain on supplementary benefits because of the offset no longer available when retrospective payment for three waiting days has gone. We believe that about £1

  63
  million will be claimed in extra supplementary benefit. Families which manage on the household income alone and do not consider it worth while applying for supplementary benefit since they expect later to receive retrospective payment for the three waiting days may, because of the change, decide on balance to apply for supplementary benefit. This is why we have provided for an extra payment of £1 million a year for extra supplementary benefit. This will relate to the cases where waiting-day payments make the difference between a family having to claim supplementary benefit and managing without it.
  I should like to say something about the recent newspaper reports concerning the payment of unemployment benefit for relatively short periods to casual workers, particularly dockers. This is a practice used by relatively few people—not only dockers—which was recently brought to my notice. I am investigating the matter, and if I find that the present safeguards are insufficient I shall be taking steps to deal with it.
  As the House knows I am about to lay before Parliament a commencement order bringing into operation from 1st January, 1972, a provision of the 1966 National Insurance Act which will stop the payment of flat rate benefit payable to workers on short time for the first six days of each such period of lay-off or suspension. At present workers such as dockers are regarded as having had their employment terminated rather than suspended each time they become unemployed and would not therefore come within the effect of the commencement order. If necessary, however, there is power to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which employment is to be treated as terminated or suspended.
  The House will wish to know when the various ingredients of the Bill are expected to come into operation.
  Mr. John Mendelson: What is the justification for a period of six days?
  Sir K. Joseph: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to intervene?
  Mr. Mendelson: The Secretary of State has just made a new announcement, he has made only brief reference to it in the past. He has never given any
  64
  justification for it. He is now slipping it in as if it is a matter of no great importance. Will he seek to justify this action and say which social policies compel him to take it?
  Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State reminds me that, here again, I can claim some support from the Opposition Front Bench, since the previous Government introduced legislation entitling them to disqualify for unemployment benefit people suspended for up to six days. It is true that they themselves flinched from taking action to bring in a commencement order.
  Mr. John Mendelson: They were democratically prevented from doing so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that we shall not have sedentary interjections.
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be led too wide, but I have referred to this commencement order. The case for removing unemployment benefit for short periods of suspension is that such a practice enables employers who wish to reduce their own costs of employment for a period to use the National Insurance Fund for a purpose for which it was never intended.
  Mr. O'Malley: On a question of fact, will the right hon. Gentleman clear one point? Is the effect of such a commencement order that anybody who goes on to short-time work—in other words, somebody who does not work on Thursday and Friday of one week and Monday and Tuesday of the next week—will have to have six days of such short-time work before he can get anything? Since the Secretary of State keeps claiming support from this side of the House, I would remind him that we are now in a new Parliament with new Members on both sides of the House, and that policy decisions on this side of the House are determined by the whole of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
  Sir K. Joseph: It is always embarrassing for an Opposition after a period of government to be reminded of various matters. However, the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own points on these questions when we lay our commencement order. There will be an opportunity to debate the matter if the Opposition wish to do so.

  65
  The abolition of the waiting days will come into effect, if the Bill passes, by order on the second Monday after Royal Assent. The change in disregards will come into effect one month after Royal Assent. The supplementary benefit repay-ability provision will come into effect at about the end of the year. The increased reduction for industrial misconduct will come into effect three months after the passing of the Act.
  We shall naturally be asked to say what is the purpose of making these national insurance savings. This Government are aware that there are some large gaps in our social provision and in the coverage of the National Insurance Scheme. It seems to us that we are involved in an exercise of priorities, and indeed a civilised one, in reviewing payments out of the National Insurance Fund which are no longer needed for the purpose for which they were designed.
  Mr. Orme: It was designed for unemployment, sickness and injury benefits.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the simple fact that in this Bill we are dealing with the National Insurance Fund. If we save, as this Bill seeks to save, some £22 million a year, this will be a saving of benefits for national insurance contributors. To that extent we could either reduce the national insurance contribution or we could use the money for new social purposes. Although £22 million saved by this Bill is certainly not earmarked in a particular way, it makes the problem of financing the new selective benefits which we are introducing that much easier. I would remind the House that the up-rating Bill that is shortly to be debated contains a number of brand-new benefits within the National Insurance Scheme which have been welcomed on both sides of the House. In particular we have been proud to introduce a substantial package for the chronic sick which will cost £24 million in a full year.
  There are additional benefits. There is to be an additional sum of money for the over-80s, on top of the national insurance increase, which will cost many millions of £s a year. We are able, therefore, to say that we have in effect switched money from priorities which have become, by the passage of time and
  66
  the increased prosperity of the country, relatively less important than they were to priorities which by all accounts are high and urgent. That is why it seems to me that this is a civilised and sensible Bill.
  Several themes of this Bill are familiar to Her Majesty's Opposition. When in government, they faced the same questions and priorities as we do. Naturally with their history and their Left-wing, they handled these subjects gingerly. They recognised the contradiction between Section 10 of their own Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and the £4·35 disregard. They legalised the disregard in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Act, which fell at the election. That legitimation is curious because my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the present Editor of the New Statesman, stigmatised that disregard as "extraordinary" in one of the editions of his paper.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that another of his predecessors, the right hon. Member who used to sit in this House for Llanelly for many years and who introduced and was the father of the scheme, would have condemned him outright today for what he is doing about the three days and the other measures that the first Labour Government introduced after the war. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no transfer from contributed funds to other payments for people who are disabled but that, instead, there is the Treasury which collects all money from taxation and other sources and allocates it for purposes like reducing surtax, so taking it from the injured and sick and giving it to the rich.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman must not get excited—
  Mr. Mendelson: I am excited.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The £24 million package for the chronic sick comes out of national insurance contributions. The £22 million saving from the Bill is a saving to national insurance contributions. It is all national insurance. The £16 million extra benefit, on top of every other benefit, for all the over-80s in the land comes very largely out of national insurance contributions. We are providing from national

  67
  insurance far more in new benefits than we are saving by this Bill.
  I was going through the record of the previous Government, because it is important that we should recognise what happened. The previous Government realised that there was a growing abuse of post-trade dispute supplementary benefits. They paltered with the abuse by their proposals in the Bill which fell at the election. My predecessor, once out of office, called that abuse of supplementary benefits "a ridiculous anomaly". The previous Government even recognised that the case for waiting days was, to put it at the least, no longer as strong as it was originally. The previous Government produced half-hearted proposals to make the three waiting days absolute and to do what we are doing in Clause 7, and then withdrew vigorously under the counter-attack of their Left wing, abetted, I must admit, by the then Opposition.
  Mr. Orme: May we have the record straight on that?
  Sir K. Joseph: No, I shall not give way again.
  Mr. Orme: Get the record straight.
  Sir K. Joseph: Have I mis-stated it?
  Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the situation inside the Parliamentary Labour Party, I can tell him. My right hon. Friend who then represented Llanelly and who introduced the Act in 1948 was one of the main opponents of the then Labour Government's proposal. The overwhelming majority in the Parliamentary Labour Party urged the Cabinet to drop it, and they dropped it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was under pressure from some of his hon. Friends who questioned what we intended to do.
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but the then Labour Cabinet decided to introduce the change in waiting days and withdrew. That is the only point that I am making at the moment.
  The only ingredient where we are doing as Labour intended is the increase in the deduction for industrial misconduct. We have gone further. But the Labour Government embarked on legislation to
  68
  raise the deduction. I have therefore now to ask the Opposition to be sure to explain their present attitude. I understand that there is to be a vote tonight. I hope that the Opposition will make it plain whether they are against the whole Bill or against only parts of it.
  There are two main items: the change in supplementary benefit arrangements in connection with trade disputes, and the making of waiting days absolute. I must ask the Opposition to be sure to make their position abundantly clear on each.
  The Bill eliminates some expenditure, once justified but now no longer needed, and brings some urgently necessary changes into the application of supplementary benefits to the households of those involved in strikes. By the passage of the Bill, we shall be enabled to serve what have become higher priorities in the National Insurance Fund. I commend it to the House.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I begin by saying that I rather wish the Secretary of State would shove his crib across the Table. This Bill outdoes in obscurity the average level of Bills from the Department of Health and Social Security, and we shall need to explore it in more detail in Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman had quite a good time talking about the Left wing of the Labour Party. I hope to be able to show that he has given way to the Right wing of his party. There are certain features of the Bill which are very disturbing and very inequitable and which, we hope, with the assistance of Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman will decide to return to the centre of his party and put right. I will explain carefully what these are and why the Opposition find them utterly unacceptable. They are, incidentally, the two most objectionable features of the Bill. They are both matters over which the right hon. Gentleman moved with considerable rapidity but into which I shall spend a good deal of time delving.
  Before doing so, perhaps I might say a little more about the background to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out quite fairly that there has been considerable exaggeration of the scale of the problems with which we are dealing, and the hon. Member for

  69
  South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has done his best to bring it about. However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, payments in the past to strikers have been relatively low. In the whole of 1970, the sum of £2,191 went from the Supplementary Benefits Commission to men who were on strike. We wish that the Government showed the same concern for those who evade income tax.
  It has been proved in the past that very few strikers have claimed for their own dependants, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. The figure between 1967 and 1969 was less than 2·5 per cent. of all strikers. Of those qualified by reason of trade disputes, less than 2·5 per cent. applied for any form of supplementary benefit. The reason for this is that the great bulk of strikes do not last even a fortnight. Over 90 per cent. last less than this time, and, consequently, in normal conditions there is no heavy call upon the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  I am bound to point out that the escalation in claims on the Supplementary Benefits Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman pointed is not totally unrelated to his Government's industrial relations and industrial negotiations policy. It was the strong distinction made by the right hon. Gentleman's Government between the public sector and the private sector which exacerbated Post Office workers to the point where they came out on strike for weeks on end and were applying for supplementary benefit to support their families.
  I shall not say—I shall come to this rather later in my speech—that there may not be some abuse against which we must protect the taxpayer. I shall be precise about what I think that abuse might be. The main cause for the soaring figures of demand on the Supplementary Benefits Commission are to be found not among the strikers, but in the policy of the Government towards industrial relations.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Lady said just now that the main cause for the soaring burden placed on the Supplementary Benefits Commission was the Government's policy on industrial relations. The figures escalated from 1966 onwards and the progression has been in more or less a straight line taking off from a flat level before that.
  Mrs. Williams: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Under-Secretary, in reply to a Question, pointed out that the annual rate of demand in the first quarter of this year, into which the Post Office strike completely falls, was 18 times the annual rate in 1970. There was an earlier increase, though it was bumpy. No other period shows anything like that rate of increase. I shall give the figures.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph rose—
  Mrs. Williams: When I have finished I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  In 1969 the amount paid to strikers' dependants was £774,000. In 1970 it was £1,445.000, which is double. In the first quarter of 1971, up to 23rd March, according to the Under-Secretary the figure was £3·25 million. That is for three months, not for six months. That shows an increased rate 18 times what it was in 1970. I think that I am entitled to describe the figures as a rapid escalation, as I did.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have the figures here. I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). In the last three years of the Labour Government the costs trebled, then doubled, and doubled again. There was a multiplication by 12 times in the last three years of the Labour Government.
  Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has given figures of doubling and trebling. I have given figures going up 18 times over the figure for 1970, which he has not challenegd. I think that that rates as an escalation—that is the only phrase I used—if language means anything.
  I move on now to Clause 1(2), with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in some detail. That refers to the 40 per cent. reduction in the adult scale. The right hon. Gentleman made considerable play, as he had every right to do, with the fact that the Labour Government proposed a reduction not quite as large as this but larger than the existing reduction, which is just under 15 per cent. I think that the Labour Government's proposal was too large a deduction. Therefore, by definition, I think that the right

  71
  hon. Gentleman's deduction is much too large, and I shall explain why.
  I say that, first, because supplementary benefit is a subsistence level benefit. It is based upon a family's needs. It does not, by definition, under the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, allow for nonessentials or luxuries; it is an essential level of subsistence. Therefore, by definition, any deduction reduces a family below what society believes to be a reasonable subsistence level. Let us make no bones about it. In effect, it means that the man who has had 40 per cent. deducted will be obliged either to live off his wife and children or to leave his wife and children so that he does not have to depend on them. We must make it clear that this is the effect of the deduction.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a standard procedure which operates in the payment of supplementary benefit to people who are not making any effort to find employment. For example, this covers single fit men who can have the allowance withdrawn after four weeks. It also covers married men who can have the allowance withdrawn after a slightly longer time. The right hon. Gentleman has set up a Committee to deal with abuse which presumably will consider whether the standard procedure is in any way being wrongly used. But the standard procedure is, and always has been, regarded as a reasonable balance between good sense and humanity in the conduct of the treatment of supplementary benefit. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals override that procedure to the extent of 40 per cent. by making the immediate assumption that people who are unemployed because of industrial misconduct or who voluntarily leave their employment are, as it were, guilty men.
  Let us look at the concept of voluntary unemployment and industrial misconduct. If a man is advised by his doctor to cease heavy lifting in a job which involves heavy lifting work he will find himself, if he leaves that job, voluntarily unemployed. If a man has domestic difficulties arising from his wife's illness and he cannot deal with these in a job which involves a great deal of travelling—for example, jobs in building or in certain kinds of public contracting often
  72
  involve travelling—and he leaves, again he is described as voluntarily unemployed.
  I advance these two cases because the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must be aware that this phrase covers everyone from the shirker who does not wish to hold a job to the man who acts responsibly in a domestic situation which involves him leaving his employment. Later I shall plead for a distinction to be made between these two cases.
  A wide range of cases is covered by the phrase "industrial misconduct". For instance, I am advised that if a man engaged in lorry driving loses his licence as a result of an accident, not during working hours, he can be dismissed for industrial misconduct because he is no longer considered suitable to hold that job.
  If the appeals procedure worked extremely quickly or if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to amend the Bill so that wherever there was a right of appeal he would reinstate full benefit and not withdraw it unless and until the appeal was dismissed, one might consider that he was at least making an attempt to establish justice. But with our present extremely crude mechanisms for determining both voluntary unemployment and industrial misconduct, the Bill could be savagely unjust in certain cases.
  There was to be a much wider dismissals procedure covering industrial misconduct in the Bill introduced by my right lion. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) than that involved in the Bill put forward by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Secretary of State for Employment, and that might have gone some way to mitigate the effects of these proposals.
  I want to ask two questions on Clause 1. I should tell the right hon. Gtntleman that we shall certainly seek to amend the Bill in this way in Committee. First, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to pay full benefit without any reduction in supplementary benefit while the appeal period exists, subject to repayment if the appeal is dismissed since he has the repayment mechanism? Alternatively, will he at least suspend the reduction, if an appeal has been made, until the appeal has been decided? The parallel is that

  73
  the court will often suspend a fine when an appeal is pending, so there is a precedent for this proposal.
  I turn now to Clause 1(4) dealing with the drop in disregards. The right hon. Gentleman said that this provision nullified Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966. I do not see it that way. The purpose of the 1966 Act was to disqualify men who were on strike, or those disqualified as a result of a trade dispute, from claiming supplementary benefit on their own behalf. But that Act did not intend—I am sure that it was not the wish of my right hon. and hon. Friends to intend—that such men could not legitimately seek to maintain themselves from other sources of income.
  What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is not just withdrawing supplementary benefit from the striker—which was what my Government did—but refusing him the resources which he has available legitimately to survive during a period of industrial dispute. These resources are strike pay and P.A.Y.E. refund. The right hon. Gentleman is doubly penalising him in a way which we find unacceptable, because the £4·35 disregard, which is the exact equivalent of a single man's entitlement, or a married man's entitlement, leaving out his family, for his own personal needs, is the size of the disregard that was accepted by the Labour Government to be set against other sources of income. The right hon. Gentleman is saying to the breadwinner that he is disqualified from receiving supplementary benefit, and that he is also going to disqualify him from finding that money in any other way. In short, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that that man will have to live off his wife and kids, whether he likes it or not.
  The first objection that we have to this drop in disregard to £1, which is spuriously described by the right hon. Gentleman as equivalent to that of other supplementary benefits, is that it is unlike every other case of supplementary benefit, because we start by disqualifying the man anyway, and this penalises only the married man. By definition, it does not penalise the single man. It singles out the man with family responsibilities to penalise.
  Second, it has an extraordinary feature, which is that it specifically penalises only official strikers. This is an extraordinary
  74
  feature of the Bill. During the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity repeatedly said that the Bill was not intended to prevent what he called justifiable strikes, but the Secretary of State for Social Services is now stepping in specifically to penalise the official strike, because it is only the official strike during which strike pay is paid. Curiously, therefore, the Government are going to take into account strike pay, which is paid only during official strikes—and presumably, therefore, in the Government's view, the most often justified strikes—but the unofficial strike will not be considered, for the simple reason that the unofficial striker has no strike pay to have taken into account.
  The situation is extraordinary. There is to be direct discrimination against the official striker receiving official strike pay, because his supplementary benefit will be reduced to the extent of the strike pay if it is up to £4·35 a week. If I have got this wrong, I shall willingly give way to the Minister, but I do not think that I have, because the right hon. Gentleman said that strike pay would be taken into account, and everybody in the House knows that strike pay is paid only to official strikers.
  My third point concerns the P.A.Y.E. refund, and this, understandably, the right hon. Gentleman barely mentioned. I do not blame him, because it is a curious piece of law that he is proposing. The P.A.Y.E. refund arises from the overpayment of tax in earlier periods. A person gets a refund only if the cumulative allowance exceeds the cumulative payment of tax up to that time. We are talking about a refund which arises from earnings before any trade dispute starts. The taxpayer has a legally enforceable entitlement to any tax that he has overpaid, but this legal entitlement will now be used by the Government to reduce supplementary benefit entitlement, though only in the case of people paying P.A.Y.E.
  P.A.Y.E. is a convenience for the Revenue. It is not specifically for the convenience of the taxpayer. What is now to happen is that the refund—the size of which is wholly arbitrary according to the stage in the tax year that has been reached—will be used by the Government to reduce the entitlement of a

  75
  man to supplementary benefit, and it is not surprising that even The Times said:
  "Tax refunds are made beause tax has been overpaid. There can be no interference with that entitlement."
  But the Government apparently feel able to interfere with that entitlement in the way that I have outlined.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Government are not interfering in any way at all with a person's entitlement to refund of tax. The disallowance of P.A.Y.E. does not arise in respect of people who are not receiving tax refunds, for the simple reason that they are not receiving tax refunds.
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman's argument will not do, because the effect of what the Government are doing will be to single out one class of taxpayer. If a self-employed man, who pays his tax annually, receives supplementary benefit during the course of the year, the refund at the end of the year will not be taken into account for the purpose of reducing his supplementary benefit. In other words, the purpose of the Bill is to single out one group of taxpayers whose legal entitlement is the same as everybody else's, and this is to happen only because it is more convenient for the Revenue that P.A.Y.E. should be paid on the weekly wage. This provision cannot affect the self-employed man, who is an annual wage earner, and it is, therefore, socially intensely regressive.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that a self-employed person might go on strike? If she is, I must tell her that I have never heard anything quite so crazy in my life.
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This has nothing to do with whether a person goes on strike. We are talking about payments to dependants, not to strikers. What we are saying is that a similar payment to the dependants of a self-employed man under the supplementary benefits scheme is not recoverable from tax refunds, whereas it is if a man is paying P.A.Y.E.
  I have another comment to make about the P.A.Y.E. situation. Bizarrely enough, if a strike or trade dispute takes place on 6th April there will be no re-
  76
  fund to be taken into account, and the same will be true during most of April. It may be that as a result of the Bill T. S. Eliot's remark that April is the cruellest month will come true, because it will be the one month in which people can strike without fear of the Government's seizing their tax refund as a way of avoiding their obligations under the supplementary benefits scheme—[Interruption.]—I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite should give a moment's serious thought to the special singling-out of one group of taxpayers from all others, and not find it a wholly frivolous kind of argument.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not be aware that people who are involved in trade disputes are being put into what one can only describe as double jeopardy from the point of view of tax because, when a man returns to work after a trade dispute, it is normal for additional overtime to be worked. Quite rightly, he has to pay tax on that overtime, but hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to realise that he will pay more tax on the overtime than he would otherwise do, because of the earlier tax refund. He will be taxed on the basis of having benefited from tax refunds which will have been used to reduce his supplementary benefit entitlement. There is no way around it, and what the Government are doing is using his tax twice over to reduce his earnings.
  I now come to Clause 2, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically in the context of what the Labour Government had done. It may be that here I shall, to some extent, part company with some of my hon. Friends on the back benches, because I think that the Labour Government were right to extend the disqualification of the striker himself to the first 15 days, but what the Government are trying to do is very much more far-reaching. They are proposing that supplementary benefit paid to the dependants of strikers shall also be reduced to the extent of the advance made in those first 15 days. I part company with them again on that point because although it seems legitimate enough to disqualify the man himself from receiving supplementary benefit when he returns to work. I find it totally

  77
  contrary to every principle of supplementary benefit schemes that his wife and children should also be penalised.
  On the question of penalising a man's wife and children, let us be clear what we are talking about. We are not talking about an advance which may be made by the employer; we are talking about an offer of an advance which may not pass to the man or his wife and children at all. My first question is whether there was any discussion with the employers, because some do make advances—and I agree that that is the right way to proceed—but others neither make nor offer them. Very often it is the employers in the lowest-paid trades who make no offer.
  Next, I want to consider the recovery procedure—the second main item in the Bill that I find utterly unacceptable, and one of the main reasons why I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. The Secretary of State did not say very much about that, either. I want to explain what will happen. Under the Bill, a man who returns to work after a trade dispute of any length will have a protected wage. That protected wage, which cannot be deducted, is the supplementary benefit level plus £2, minus family allowances. Therefore, he will not benefit proportionately according to the size of his family.
  After that protected wage has been allowed for—supplementary benefit, plus £2—the rest of his wages, up to one-eighth or, if his employer alone decides that it is right, up to one-quarter, can be taken to repay the supplementary benefit paid in the first 15 days. This places a considerable extra burden upon employers. If I were an employer I would not wish to undertake it. But above all, it totally misunderstands the circumstances of the families about whom we are talking—the families of workers who have been engaged in a dispute.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford West (Mr. Orme) pointed out, in many cases a man who was not himself directly involved in the dispute has been living off his family for the period of the dispute because he has not had any entitlement. He has used up his tax refund, because the Government will take that into account. He has had no benefit from strike pay, because the Government will take that into account. He and his family are almost bound to
  78
  run into debt, with electricity bills, hire-purchase commitments, gas bills and rent arrears. When he goes back to work he tries to get overtime pay in order to get rid of his debts, but the Government seize the money that he makes from overtime to repay the supplementary benefit that he has got for his family during the first two weeks after returning to work.
  I can think of no scheme more calculated to drive these families into debt and rent arrears—a situation from which it will be almost impossible for them to recover for weeks upon end. I cannot believe that that is what the Secretary of State intended, even if I am not sure that we can let off the hook some of his hon. Friends.
  I now turn to the question of those who are disqualified. I am not sure how many hon. Members opposite appreciate the effect of the disqualification provision; if they did, I am sure that they would not have cheered the Bill to the extent they have. On 29th March the Secretary of State said that this reduction of supplementary benefit rate would affect strikers and others disqualified because of trade disputes. The Economist, hardly a Socialist newspaper, pointed out on 3rd February of this year that
  "This will be rough on those affected by, rather than active in, any particular strike, since the definition of those involved in a trade dispute, laid down in the 1966 Social Security Act is, perhaps necessarily somewhat wide-ranging."
  The Ministry of Social Security, in evidence to the Donovan Commission, said that:
  "The present law was based on the assumption that this special relationship, or community of interest, between a group of workers identified as a grade or class, is of reality of sufficient importance to justify treating them all alike, in the matter of entitlement to unemployment benefit, when work is lost as a result of a trade dispute. Whether this assumption is valid in modern industrial conditions may be open to doubt, and certainly there is evidence that its validity is not generally recognised or accepted by those who are adversely affected by it."
  The Donovan Commission said:
  "This seems to us not so much the recognition of an interest as the invention of it.…Administrative convenience is not much of a commendation for a provision which is also capable of considerable injustice."
  The Government expressed sympathy for the recommendation on grade and class. The right hon. Gentleman has

  79
  said that no change of that kind will be made in the Bill. Let us be clear; the Bill will penalise, in terms of entitlement to supplementary benefit, not just a man's wife and family; not just an unofficial striker but an official striker; not just an official striker but people of the same grade or class as an official striker; not just people of the same grade or class as the official striker, but those who are members of a union financing a strike in the same place of employment. If the Government wish to claim justice for the Bill they must act in such a way as to exclude those wholly innocent individuals from a swingeing penalty.
  Mr. John Page: Will the hon. Lady read to the House the paragraphs in the conclusion of the evidence of the Ministry of Social Security to the Donovan Commission which support the retention of the existing grades?
  Mrs. Williams: The Minister of Social Security certainly eventually came out in favour of grade and class, but after considering the evidence—and some important evidence was given by the Department of Employment and Productivity which I have not quoted—it came to the conclusion that there was no justification for retaining the financing provision, or not altering the grade and class provisions.
  I come finally to the question of the three-day waiting time. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he said about the proposal originally put forward by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Pensions, although it is fair to say that she put them forward in very neutral terms. She said:
  "Given all the considerations of public expenditure involved, we think that it will be sensible to look very fully at this aspect of our structure of short-term benefits and, therefore, at the particular provision in this Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 183.]
  She made it clear that she was prepared to withdraw the Clause in Committee, and she later did so.
  This Government, with their rather marked reversal on the RB211 and, I hope, their reversal on proportional prescription charges, had better not pursue the question of a change of mind
  80
  too far, because any reasonably intelligent Government change their mind in the light of argument.
  Mr. Orme: Let us have the record right. This proposal was first put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. It was a Treasury proposal. That is where it originated. That is what caused so much concern among my hon. Friends.
  Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was making the point that when it was introduced it was made clear by the then Minister that it was subject to reconsideration later.
  There are powerful arguments for not reintroducing that cut now. The first point was made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, namely, the extreme inequality between those workers who are covered by sick pay schemes and those who are not. Even on his figures only 60 per cent. are covered by sick pay schemes. The lower-paid workers are most affected by the withdrawal of the three-day waiting time whereas the better paid are usually members of sick pay schemes.
  Second, the right hon. Gentleman referred at length to changes in circumstances over the past 20 years, but he did not refer to one change of circumstance which runs in exactly the opposite direction—the fact that we now have the highest unemployment for 30 years, much of which is relatively long term.
  Finally, in the "Alice in Wonderland" of politics on this Bill, I am bound to ask the question which was asked by the noble Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessor as Shadow Secretary of State:
  "What consultations were there with employers and the unions before introducing the change?"
  I will ask all these questions of the right hon. Gentleman. "What statistics are available to show the extent to which the loss of benefit will be made up by the employer? I hope that as many employers as possible will make good the cut, but it is being introduced"—
  it still is—
  "in a thoroughly unfavourable climate and without any warning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 204.]

  81
  I underline the words of the noble Lord and ask those questions of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has removed the local social security committees without considering the functions which they might serve. He may be right to do so, but the House would have liked to see a greater effort to discover whether these committees could be used for more effective safeguarding of claims and for better participation.
  The most marked feature of the Bill, and the reason that we have to vote against it, is partly the two utterly unacceptable new principles which it embodies—the claiming of P.A.Y.E. refunds in reducing supplementary benefit, and the procedure for recovery against payments made for wives and children. But above all, it is marked by an indiscriminate desire to penalise those who are involved in strikes.
  It is not surprising that The Guardian said on 30th March:
  "Some Conservatives have been complaining that strikers' families are shirkers who should not be subsidised out of public funds. People who say this are declaring, though not in so many words, that they will always be on the employer's side in any conceivable strike, whatever the circumstances. They ignore or would like to abolish the purpose of the 1966 Act, which is to safeguard the whole community against the worst degrees of poverty, however the poverty is caused."
  Because I believe that that leader is absolutely right, and because I believe that this Bill is marked by a degree of discrimination which cannot be justified, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hitchen (Mrs. Shirley Williams) for whom, if it is not improper of me to say so, I have always had considerable respect and admiration. However, this afternoon she was in a spot of trouble. She referred to "Alice in Wonderland". There were overtones of "Shirley in Wonderland" today. In particular, I was fascinated—almost mesmerised—by her argument about the iniquity of calculating P.A.Y.E. refunds as a disregard for purposes of supplementary benefit. It was in "Alice in Wonderland" that there was reference to the race in which everyone was to win and everyone was to have a prize.
  82
  Her complaint seemed to be that we were discriminating against those who had not so far suffered a disregard in respect of their P.A.Y.E. refunds, as against those who had not received such refunds. In other words, by withdrawing a particular bonus to one group of people, one was penalising them against those who never received the bonuses in the first place. This was a bizarre piece of logic.
  Mr. O'Malley: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that, if anyone but a striker who is receiving supplementary benefit get a tax refund through P.A.Y.E., that tax refund is treated as capital, not as current income. Would he justify the Government's decision to treat the tax refunds of strikers differently from those received by any other taxpayer who is also receiving supplementary benefit?
  Mr. Bruce-GardyneSurely the important point is that the striker, unlike other categories in this position, has taken a voluntary decision. What has happened is a reflection of that voluntary decision.
  I agree with some of what the hon. Lady said about Clause 1. We shall have to look carefully at this, because there are problems. I accept something of what she said about so-called voluntary dismissal and dismissal for misconduct. I am thinking particularly of the action of her own Government in sacking a lot of teachers in Scotland—not for misconduct, but simply because they resented having to change the whole basis of their employment overnight. These people, who had indulged in no misconduct, suffered the six weeks disregard.
  I very much welcome the broad proposals of the Bill. All of us who fought the last election must be aware that there is considerable public disquiet at what is regarded as an abuse of the social security system. This abuse is considered to take two forms. One is that claims and payments are made on the basis of misinformation, where there is clear breach of existing legislation. That does not come within the scope of the Bill.
  But the other aspect, I believe, has led to a growing feeling that some of the legal entitlement to claims by individuals, particularly on the supplementary benefits system—
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Bruce Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman had better make his own speech.
  Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: There is also anxiety about the occasions when a perfectly legal claim arises in such manner as the Bill is designed to deal with—
  Mr. Mendelson: On this point—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sorry, but the hon. Member has intervened and intervened. He must make his own speech—
  Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will obey the spirit of the House. As the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) obviously does not mean to give way, he should allow him to get on.
  Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. Is it not the custom of the House that, when an hon. Member says that every hon. Member in the last election had a certain experience, he should give way to one of those Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is still entirely within the discretion of the Member who has the floor, and if he does not give way, in the interests of free speech he should be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful, Sir. There was also some hypocrisy—although I appreciated her difficulty—in what the hon. Lady said about Clause 7. One sometimes has the feeling that the Front Bench opposite have gargantuan appetites for their own words. After the fairly considerable meal that hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite had to make of their words in pursuit of "In Place of Strife" in the industrial relations exercise, one might imagine that they would have indicated rather more indigestion in consuming what they had to say in support of their own proposals in 1968.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I resent the phrase that he used. I tried to make it absolutely clear where I shared the views of the previous Government and where I differed from their views and where it was felt that
  84
  the previous Government had taken the matter far enough. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the charge of hypocrisy.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I withdraw at once the charge of hypocrisy against the hon. Lady. I am afraid that I was using a collective phrase for the entire Opposition Front Bench. I agree with her that she made her own position very clear.
  I want to concentrate my remarks largely on Clause 1(3) and (4) and Clause 2, which deal with the position of supplementary benefits to strikers and their dependants, as this is a change in the law which I welcome all the more because I have to some extent campaigned for this over several years. I want, first of all, to deal with the question of the vertiginous progress of these payments over the years and in particular with the point that the hon. Lady made, on which I interrupted her, that the take off in the level of supplementary benefit payments to strikers occurred as a reflection of the present Government's industrial relations policies.
  I do not wish to burden the House with many figures, but one or two are important. Between 1951 and 1966 there were only four years—1955, 1957, 1965 and 1966—in which the total of supplementary benefits to strikers and their dependants during strikes and after the termination of the strikes exceeded £100,000. In 1967 the total figure was £489,000; in 1968 £414,000; in 1969 £1·4 million and in 1970 £2·3 million. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, in the first four months of this year the figure amounted to £3¾ million—a figure to which I should like to return in a moment.
  The interesting thing is that the total payments during the 16-year period from 1951 to 1966 were exceeded in 1970, including the period before the present Government came into power, and in 1969. I believe that the figures make it quite clear that the real take-off point was not after the return of the present Government but was in 1966. I will explain in a moment why this happened. But before I come to that, I should like to query the figure of 3¾ million which my right hon. Friend gave for the first four months of this year. He also said that the figure for tide-over payments

  85
  after the end of strikes for the first quarter of the year was £435,000. I am not sure that I can entirely reconcile that with the figure of £¾ million for the first four months of the year, if that is the total payment. In other words, if the £ ¾ million is the figure for payments, including payments after the end of strikes, I am not clear that I can reconcile that figure with the figures that we have been given for the level of payments up to 23rd March. That is a point of detail which it might be worth elucidating. Whatever the figures may be, the level of supplementary benefit payments in strikes during the first four months of this year were running at the rate of upwards of £11 million a year.
  Sir K. Joseph: I think my hon. Friend is quite right. I think the total figure should be over £4 million. I should like to make sure of that and I will ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give the House the right figure later on.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  I was going to ask how this vertiginous escalation of payments had come about. I used to be told when the party opposite were in power that it was due to two reasons: first, the higher scale of rates of supplementary benefit, and that is certainly a fact which I do not dispute. The second reason was the tendency for strikes to last longer, which I am bound to say has always seemed to me to be like saying that the increase in the consumption of alcahol is attributable to the increase in alcoholism, rather than the other way round.
  But apart from these two factors—and they certainly go some way to explaining the vertiginous increase in the level of benefits—there is a third factor, and it is this factor which has largely gone unnoticed. That is the change which was introduced—
  Mr. Heffer: On this question of the longer period of strikes, is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the discussions on the Industrial Relations Bill his hon. Friends consistently argued that what they really wanted to deal with were the short unofficial disputes? They recognised that there might well be longer strikes as a result of the Bill, that there
  86
  would be bigger strikes rather like those in the United States of America. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying, having put the position as he has, that we should ensure that the workers do not receive benefits?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No, what I am saying is that instead of attributing an increase in the scale of supplementary benefits to the lengthening of strikes, one might attribute a lengthening of strikes to an increase in the scale of supplementary benefits. That is all I am saying.
  Mr. Heffer: Nonsense.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The third factor to which I want to turn, because it has been largely neglected, is the change that was introduced in the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966. In the National Assistance Act, 1948, Section 5 reads:
  "The question whether a person is in need of assistance, and the nature and extent of any assistance to be given to him, shall be decided by the Board."
  That is the National Assistance Board. The Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, had an entirely different phrase. It said:
  "Every person in Great Britain of or over the age of sixteen whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to benefit as follows …"
  I think this change was significant.
  I notice also that in the Annual Report for 1966 of the Ministry of Social Security it is said:
  "The new scheme … also provides for the first time a specific entitlement to benefit for those people who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Act and its regulations."
  I believe that a good deal, perhaps not all, of the escalation which has occurred is attributable to the change introduced in the 1966 Act.
  I accept that hon. Members opposite will say that this change was entirely justified and desirable, but we should look rather more carefully at some of its implications. We notice, for instance, that in recent years the cause of strikes has appeared to change. In 1965, only 27 per cent. of industrial disputes were reckoned to be attributable to wage claims. The figure in 1966 was 22 per cent.; in 1967, 47 per cent.; in 198, 52 per cent.; in 1969, 57 per cent., and in 1970, 65 per cent. In other words, we

  87
  have seen that a higher and higher proportion of industrial disputes has arisen over wage claims, and it is possibly fair to argue that the proportion of disputes relating to wage claims in which supplementary benefit has been paid has been higher still, in so far as those disputes may have been liable to continue for a longer period, and therefore likely to attract supplementary benefit.
  That puts some doubt on Mr. Feather's statement the other day that under the provisions of the Bill the striker will be in a worse position than the individual who is sent to prison: because, apart from anything else, it can hardly be argued by any hon. Member opposite that the individual who is sent to prison hopes thereby to enhance the size of his wage packet.
  We may also consider the occasions on which a strike may not have occurred, and an employer may have come to terms on a highly inflationary settlement precisely because of his awareness that through the operation, among other things, of the supplementary benefit system, a strike will be prolonged to a point at which intolerable damage will be done to the firm, and he therefore comes to the conclusion that he will be better advised to come to terms on a highly inflationary basis however damaging that may be in the long term.
  My right hon. Friend proposes to deal with this situation to the extent of reducing the £4·35 discretionary payment to £1 a week, and to make the tide-over payment after the end of a strike subject to repayment. I must confess that I am a little doubtful about the suggestion of reclaiming the tide-over payments because I feel that this may be open to the same sort of objections which led the Ministry of Social Security, as I think, quite rightly, to reject the idea of making all supplementary benefits paid during a strike equally subject to repayment. There are complications which may need further scrutiny.
  I am not convinced that the proposal in the Bill as it stands necessarily fully meets the position. My view has always been, perhaps, a rather crude and simplistic view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I expected to get some support from hon. Members opposite for that statement. My view is that the oblige-
  88
  tion should lie squarely on the shoulders of the union that called the strike, or which allows one of its branches to call a strike, to finance that strike. I tabled an Amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill to make it a condition for registration of a union that it should maintain funds on such a scale that it could provide adequate financial support for its members as and when it called them out on strike. For reasons well known to the House, it was not possible to debate that Amendment, but that seems to me to be where logic should lead us.
  Furthermore, I have always believed that the entitlement of the families of those involved in industrial disputes to receive supplementary benefit from the Supplementary Benefits Commission should be terminated. I have been accused by hon. Members opposite of wishing to go back to beyond the Poor Law. I make no suggestion of any such thing. I only suggest going back to the 1948 Act, an admirable Socialist Act introduced by the Attlee Government, and laying down that as the payment of national assistance used to be in the discretion of the National Assistance Board, so the payment of supplementary benefit in these cases, and these cases alone, should be subject to the clear discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I shall seek to table Amendments to that effect in due course.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, and it is indisputable, that one man's strike call is another man's redundancy notice. The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin referred to the statement in The Guardian to the effect that this Bill proved that the Conservative Party was inalienably on the side of the employers in any industrial dispute. I do not think that it does any such thing. We must all recognise the truth of what my right hon. Friend said last week.
  There is in my constituency a factory where week after week additional redundancies have been declared because that firm happens to be an important supplier of capital goods to the British motor car industry, and it is suffering from the fact that the British motor car industry has had drastically to reduce its capital investment because, thanks to industrial unrest last year, there was no profit from which to make the provision

  89
  for that investment possible. If there could be a clearer indication than that of the way in which one man's strike call is another man's redundancy notice I have yet to see it.
  I believe that we are getting to an intolerable situation when my constituents know that they are obliged through the tax system to contribute towards the cost of supplementary benefits in order to facilitate the objectives of a small minority of trade union militants who are engaged in fomenting industrial unrest and bringing about strikes which will in due course have the effect of driving those same constituents of mine out of employment. That is why I believe that this Bill is a splendid move towards the elimination of some of these abuses, and I hope that we can improve it in Committee.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Reg Prentice: This mean little Bill is an example of the difference between the Conservatism of the period before 1964 and the Conservatism of 1971. I say that with some nostalgia because between 1957 and 1964 I took part in most of the national insurance debates. The Minister for most of that period was the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). My hon. Friends and I used to say some pretty rough things about him, but now I feel in the mood to demand his recall.
  In those days our criticism of him and of that Government was that they moved far too slowly in improving social insurance provisions. We demanded higher rates of benefit and changes in the rules in favour of those in need. They tended to resist our demands, but at least, on the whole, they were not moving backwards. This Bill is an example of many others in which the Government are trying to take the social system backwards.
  There are three main motives for the Bill. The first is to exploit for party reasons what the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has just described as public disquiet about abuse of benefits. The myth about widespread abuse is perpetrated by some of the most reactionary newspapers in the country and is used by the Tories for party reasons. Apart from the damage done in general, awful damage is done to indi-
  90
  vidual people in need, because these myths help to create among some people —I have met them in my advice bureau, and other hon. Members will have the same experience—the sense that there is something shameful about applying for benefits to which they are entitled.
  Of course there are occasional abuses. Anyone who visits a local office of the Department of Health and Social Security, as I did in my constituency about a month ago, is impressed by the efficiency by which the officers of the Department, with the experience of many years, are able to recognise cases of abuse and to deal with them. Occasionally, someone gets through the net. But we all ought to be able to unite on the sentiment that we would rather that that happened occasionally than see other people refused the benefits to which they are entitled. That is no excuse whatever for reducing the scope of social insurance in the way that, to some extent, the Bill does.
  The second reason for the Bill is to make a mean little attempt to hit at the strike situation through the children of strikers or, indeed, children of non-strikers, who will be disqualified from the benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled because of the provisions made in that respect.
  The third and main reason for the Bill is to save £21 million a year. For that, the principal Clause is Clause 7, dealing with the waiting days, about which I shall say something shortly. It is no use the Secretary of State saying to the House that this has to be set alongside improvements for the chronic sick and so on. What happened was that this change was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last October as part of his mini-Budget. It was part of a package of savings which enabled him to introduce tax reliefs mainly benefiting better-off people. It has to be faced absolutely squarely that that package of savings was designed for that purpose, and the House is being asked to rob people of three days of benefit, to which they are entitled, to contribute towards the financing of those tax reliefs.
  I refer to three specific proposals. First, on the proposals dealing with supplementary benefit, in cases of unemployed people who are placed in the category of having committed misconduct or being voluntarily unemployed, and so

  91
  on, this has been a disqualification from unemployment benefit dating back, I believe, in almost unaltered form to the original unemployment insurance scheme of 1911, and carried forward to the 1946 Act and ever since.
  The Government think that we have to accept that, for the purpose of defining unemployment accurately, some rule has to exist to distinguish people who are unemployed as a result of misconduct or who remain unemployed by refusal of a suitable job from those who are voluntarily unemployed. Even so, the existing rules work too harshly on unemployment benefit. I am not talking about supplementary benefit.
  For some years, as a trade union official, I was arguing appeals on these matters. At the time, it seemed that this blanket definition covered far too many circumstances. In some cases it covered the absolute scrounger, but, more often, it covered people who had perfectly sound reasons for not accepting the particular job or leaving the job which they had. It seems that we ought to seek some new definitions. This is a difficult task which has defeated many people who have looked at it. But in any case, we should not extend the disqualification to supplementary benefit. The Labour Government were wrong to move a little way along that road. But they moved along that road not as far as the 40 per cent. disqualification in the Bill. What is more, they modified their original proposals after consultation with the T.U.C. The present Government, true to type, do not discuss these matters with the T.U.C. any more, and therefore are not in a position to receive very often wise and experienced advice on these matters.
  On Clause 7, I simply emphasise the points already made from the Front Bench, that surely we ought to regard supplementary benefits as creating a floor below the level of which people are not allowed to exist. We regard a certain standard of living as being the minimum. If people fall below that minimum we should provide the benefits to bring them up to that level. We ought not to introduce this element of guilt or blameworthiness into the argument, because in many other connections the authorities, quite rightly, do not ask
  92
  how people come to be in a position in which they need to apply for supplementary benefits.
  This applies equally to the argument about the payment of supplementary benefits to strikers or others laid off work during an industrial dispute. We ought not to be treating people in a particular way because their need arises from a voluntary decision to strike, and far less if it arises from someone else's decision to strike. The point has been made, by Mr. Victor Feather and others, that in this way we are dealing with the families of strikers on a worse basis than the families of men in prison who have been convicted of a serious crime.
  That is a valid point and one which the House ought to consider with great care. Once we start trying to put into the supplementary benefit system this concept of guilt and inquiring into what has led to the family being without means, we are on dangerous ground. Obviously, we are penalising not merely the man himself, whom we may rightly or wrongly consider guilty, but we are penalising his entire family.
  It is on that basis that I attack the provisions about industrial disputes. We have here a miserable little echo of the Industrial Relations Bill, attempting to put all strikers in the dock—whatever the protestations of Ministers in another context—and attempting to suggest that all strikes are wrong, all strikers are evil, all managements are good people who have committed no mistake, and that the strikers, if not evil, are at any rate being led astray by evil men and are a flock of sheep for being so led astray. This, again is a myth being exploited by the Tory Party in many different connections.
  What worries me is that there seemed to be a hint in something that the Secretary of State said that these provisions might be only the first instalment in a series of provisions to operate against the supplementary benefits of those involved in industrial disputes. The hon. Member for South Angus wanted to go further in this direction. Such demands are frequently made by Conservatives.
  Even if it were valid to put such pressure on someone on strike—I do not think that it is—there are three weaknesses. First, such pressure makes no distinction as to the cause of the industrial dispute and whether it is the type of

  93
  dispute in which the Government themselves feel that people are justified in engaging.
  Second, it is not possible to distinguish between the striker and his family. As long as the striker is living with his family, as long as he is paying the rent in one go, and as long as he is feeding from the same table, there is no such thing as depriving the striker of benefit and allowing members of his family their benefit. His family will share with the striker. So the Government are hitting at the striker through his dependants.
  The present law disqualifies from unemployment benefit, and therefore to some extent from supplementary benefit, not merely the person on strike but five other categories—those financing the strike, those who have an interest in the outcome of the strike, those belonging to a grade or class of workers any of whom are on strike, and so on. This is fundamentally unfair.
  The T.U.C. should have made much more of this issue years ago and should have campaigned for the amendment of the law, but the T.U.C. was quiescent on this issue for a long period. Towards the end of its period in office, the Labour Government were committed to amending this facet of the law. In so far as there is any argument for what the Government are doing in this respect, it could have validity only if it were applied to strikers alone. It ceases to have a validity when it is applied to the other categories of people.
  The Government are seeking to bring pressure to bear in the industrial situation, not only through the children of strikers but also through the children of non-strikers whose place of work or residence may be the same. This is a mean weapon. It is a terrible confession by the Government of failure in their attempt sensibly to deal with industrial relations.
  The worst part of a Bill is Clause 7. It is certainly the biggest part of the Bill. It will save the greatest amount of money and will affect the largest amount of people. The Secretary of State was totally unconvincing in his reasoning for this Clause.
  The essential point is that sickness, unemployment or industrial injury benefit is something to which a claimant is en-
  94
  titled. It is something for which he has contributed through his national insurance contribution, possibly for a long time and possibly without having made any claim for many years. The claimant is entitled to the benefit as of right if he is genuinely sick, unemployed or injured for a given period of time. All along it has been fundamental to the system that the claimant is entitled to the benefit as of right without a means test. The provision in Clause 7 could be a dangerous precedent for the further erosion of the whole social insurance system.
  The Secretary of State said that if the family concerned were very poor they could apply for supplementary benefits. He said that they would have done so in any event and would not have waited for the back payment of the three days. He argued that the position of very poor people would not be affected. We hear this kind of argument so often from the Government about so many of their Measures. The Government bring before the House a measure of redistribution in favour of the rich and say that it does not matter, because they have made various provisions for the very poor: there can be extras—free school meals, the family income supplement scheme, and so on.
  The Government totally ignore the position of millions who are living below the average standard of living but who are not in the category of the very poor. They ignore the position of a man earning an average wage or less than an average wage who perhaps has to pay a large sum in rent or mortgage, who has hire-purchase obligations, who has bills coming in, and who in a period of sickness suddenly finds it difficult to make ends meet. Such a person needs the half a week of benefit of which he is now being deprived. He has paid for that half week of benefit by his contributions over the years.
  This is just one more example of the thinking which the Goverment have shown on many different things and which we should oppose. The Government must not be allowed to get away with the argument that they can perpetrate an act of social injustice and then mitigate it by labelling a small minority of people as the poor. People still have feelings about that sort of thing. The Government must not be allowed to get

  95
  away with the defence that by so labelling these people they can justify the whole operation.
  Basically, this part of the Bill is taking away half a week's benefit from people who are sick, injured or unemployed, to provide tax reliefs for the rich. It is a mean, squalid little part of the Tory Government's social and economic policy and it should be thrown out.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am one of the many hon. Members on this side who basically approve of an increasingly selective approach in social welfare. Many of us expect that one of the most desirable effects of a period of Conservative administration will be that the resources of the State will be concentrated increasingly on those who are most in need and whose needs are in many respects not met by the present system of social security.
  If we are to move towards a more selective system, two things need to be done. The first is the ever-popular exercise, in which we are all glad to take part, of pressing upon the Government the claims of those whose benefits need to be increased. All hon. Members have their own favourites for whom they can press for an increase in benefit.
  The other aspect of improving the selectivity of the social security system must be the elimination of the payment of benefits to those who are not in genuine need or not in any special need and the elimination of the payment of benefit to people who come much lower down the list of priorities than the chronic sick, the very poor, the aged and all the others whose claims we can urge.
  The second approach is important, because the Bill is essentially one which eliminates the payment of benefits in certain circumstances. It is important to eliminate unjustified benefits because in that way we can release resources which can be devoted to relieving the greater need. The Bill cannot be regarded entirely separately from the much more popular National Insurance Bill which the House will consider next week and which will increase many benefits.
  Another important reason for reducing the payment of unjustified benefits, or
  96
  benefits which are not justified in our present list of priorities, is that public confidence in the social security system will be increased and the willingness of the taxpayer to continue to make heavy contributions towards its cost will be increased.
  The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) attributed certain reactions to the influence of newspapers, but in his surgery he must have encountered the feeling amongst members of the public that much of the money which they devote by way of taxation and national insurance contributions to the social security system is not being spent on the right people.
  Nothing is more responsible for the present inadequate level of many of our welfare provisions than the unwillingness of the taxpayer readily to pay more to a system which he believes is in some respects deficient in the way in which it pays out money. There are two aspects to this. There is strong public feeling against the scrounger and the person who defrauds the system. The system cannot deal with this because it is expensive and difficult to go about. The second aspect is the feeling that some benefits are going quite lawfully to people who are not defrauding the system because they are entitled to claim the benefits but who are not deserving beneficiaries. This Bill covers a number of areas in which the payment of money is being made to people whom the taxpayer does not regard as worth-while beneficiaries.
  It is important to acknowledge this. If we take no steps to reduce payments in areas where entitlement cannot be justified we shall simply increase this frustrated feeling on the part of many people that their money is being wasted and thereby increase their unwillingness to urge the Government to make higher provision where it is needed. This feeling is not inculcated by newspapers; it is a feeling known to any politician of any party who gets in touch with his constituents. It is a feeling that would be urged upon him by ordinary hard-working people with perfectly humanitarian instincts, who would be anxious to have their money devoted to aiding the weak in society and those genuinely in need, but who feel that one of the deficiencies of our welfare system is that payments

  97
  of money are going in directions which cannot be supported.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Member will realise that in repeating the views of others in this House he is endorsing them. Will he say which provisions under Clause 7 of this Bill he would regard as undeserving?
  Mr. Clarke: I will comment on Clause 7 later. It is the most important Clause in terms of savings in the Bill. It is a Clause dealing with an entitlement to benefit which can no longer be regarded as a high priority and where the saving of £19 million is worth making. As the Bill deals with the elimination of unjustified benefits, I will deal first with the other and more controversial part of the Bill—Clause 1(4) dealing with the payment of supplementary benefit to strikers and the changes that are to be made in the discretion at the moment exercised in disregarding certain elements of strikers' income.
  This illustrates the second of the two reasons I have given for eliminating unjustified benefits. There is not a great saving of money to be made here, as has been illustrated. The amounts of money to be saved, although growing with the increase in industrial disputes, are not in themselves a justification for reducing this payment. This change in the manner of calculating the level of benefit to which the families of strikers are entitled is justified in my opinion on the ground that it will stop a nonsense in the system whereby there is special treatment given in some respects to people who cannot be categorised as being among the poorest in society.
  The way this discretion is exercised treats rather specially such claimants to supplementary benefits. They are put in a privileged position. The families of strikers cannot be regarded as being entirely on a footing with any other claimant to supplementary benefit. We cannot completely overlook the position whereby the head of the family, who is probably normally in well-paid employment, is voluntarily, in pursuit either of a justified or unjustified grievance, forgoing his income, in many cases simply to raise that income still further. Then there is the disregarding of a sum which happens, by coincidence, to be exactly
  98
  the sum to which a single man would otherwise be entitled.
  There are certain sources of income which at the moment are disregarded and which are quite exceptional to strikers. Strike pay has no analogy whatever in any other category of claimant for supplementary benefit. Strike pay is a source of income which the striker receives from someone who is prepared to support his forgoing income in pursuit of his claim for a higher wage.
  Disregarding the first few pounds of strike pay, if it is a man not receiving P.A.Y.E. repayments, is an anomaly. Someone who is not for some reason receiving P.A.Y.E. repayment and is receiving strike pay has £4.35 disregarded. It is extraordinary that he should have this income disregarded in his special case when the other claimants going to the office for benefits will be the desparately needy in society. There is no justification for the special anomaly of disregarding strike pay income the man is actually receiving.
  It is a complaint from hon. Members opposite that other people receiving P.A.Y.E. repayments who are also entitled to supplementary benefit can have those repayments disregarded in certain circumstances. I accept that. I have so far heard nothing from hon. Members opposite accepting the other side of the coin, which is that not only are strikers in this special category because they are on strike—it is a self-imposed loss of income—but also that they are specially treated by way of P.A.Y.E. repayments. They are in a privileged position when it comes to receiving P.A.Y.E. repayments.
  In looking at their position we should look at the payment of supplementary benefit to those people who are in a special category, forgoing income, often to try to increase their wage in the long term. Not only do they have certain elements of what is coming to their household disregarded for the purposes of claiming benefit, but there is a further element, a "perk", which rather annoys members of the public when they realise it.
  This is the fact that the supplementary benefit which they receive—these being people who are to return to an ordinary wage—is not treated as income for income tax purposes. That does not

  99
  matter in the case of genuine poor who must rely on supplementary benefit, but it is very relevant in the case of strikers who are doing without income for a temporary period, who are generously having £4·35 in effect added to the supplementary benefit for their families. It is an important consideration, this tax-free "perk".
  Hon. Members opposite will resist this fiercely. I have justified it in language which they obviously find too strong, but I think that their resistance over-rates the extent of this. This is not a Draconian change in the position of strikers. It is a welcome change, eliminating a comparatively small, in terms of the overall cost to the Welfare State, but nevertheless important, anomaly in the payment of supplementary benefit which tends to give a small but unjustified amount to a particular class of claimants who cannot be rated as the genuine poor.
  Hon. Members opposite may be reacting because they expected much more swingeing measures to be taken against strikers and their families. Some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite seem to have been prepared to attack changes which the Government have not made. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), whose views I respect on this issue. I know his strong feelings on the effects that this could have in reducing the level of strikes.
  I congratulate the Government on not having gone beyond their present position and taken steps which would—not, as in this case, remove a privilege accorded to strikers—start biting into the supplementary benefit payable to the families of strikers. That could cause hardship. I have in mind particularly the hardship it might cause to the families of strikers who were unwilling participants in the strike in the first place. This happens in many cases at the moment. If we start biting into supplementary benefits, not only taking away privileges, but saying that these people are not entitled to supplementary benefit, real hardship could be caused. The majority of hon. Members on this side, despite their strong feelings on some strikes, would accept that we have to adopt other methods of dealing with our industrial problems than trying to impose hardship on the wives and families of strikers.
  100
  I cannot understand the indignation among hon. Members opposite about the removal of this privilege. It is a privilege that ought to be removed to make the system more effective; certainly it is a change that it is right to make. Hon. Members opposite may object that it is impossible to distinguish between the justified and unjustified strike in taking any step of this description. I quite accept that, but that is a double-edged point. It means that the social security system is used in support of all strikes, both justified and unjustified.
  It has to be borne in mind that if special treatment is given to strikers who claim supplementary benefit, there are some extremely unpopular and unjustified strikes and those taking part would not, in the view of many members of the public, be entitled to this extra £4·35 because of the way that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been exercising its discretion.
  I promised to be brief, and I will not speak much longer, but I should like to deal with the other major aspect of the Bill concerning the ending of the three-days' waiting time. This has to be justified on the basis that it releases so much money. It is the only part of the Bill which falls into the category of cutting out a great deal of spending and releasing a valuable amount of resources —£19 million—which can, and will, be devoted to other sectors.
  The elimination of this payment can be justified also on the basis of the selectivity of the changes which the Government are making. In the whole field of welfare, we have to decide where our priorities lie. Given the inadequacy of our Welfare State, the £19 million has to be spent on deserving cases in those areas where poverty and hardship are being suffered which can be eliminated by the use of such resources.
  The plain fact is that the delayed payment of this three-days' waiting time sickness benefit is not doing a worth-while social job. It makes no difference to those in real need. None of our people lives entirely on national insurance sickness benefit at any stage—nor should people do so. They become immediately entitled to supplementary benefit and they get no benefit whatever from the three-days' waiting time, about which complaint is being made. To other people

  101
  who do not fall into that category, it comes after they have already started receiving their sickness benefit. It comes after three weeks as a lump-sum extra payment. To people in sick pay schemes who have an income of their own, it arrives as a surprising bonus which many do not expect. Although it can be justified in some terms, it certainly is not an expenditure which can, in any way, be said to be serving a real social need, eliminating poverty or easing hardship.
  Given the claims that are made on the State, in my opinion £19 million can be used in more worth-while directions. I conclude on this note, which is in many ways the most important one. It is too easy to restrict comments on social security to a demand for more money for every deserving claimant and resistance to the slightest change that is made in payment.
  The right hon. Member for East Ham, North emphasised people's entitlements under the National Insurance Scheme and how these were benefits which they had paid for and to which they were, therefore, entitled. My view is that the enshrining of a so-called insurance principle in welfare will get us into severe difficulties of this sort, so that every payment is defended as a matter of strict entitlement for which someone has paid and any attempt to alter the direction in which payments are made, or the emphasis of welfare payments, will be resisted on that ground.
  What is much more important is to bear in mind that as the insurance system is not, in fact, an insurance system, we are dealing with the devotion of resources to the first priorities in welfare. We are besieged by justified demands for more money for the poor, the disabled, the chronic sick and the aged. I regret, therefore, that a Bill of this sort, which releases resources and increases confidence in the system, is answered in part by a rather politically-inspired defence of payments to people who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as among the needy in our society.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am not certain, but I believe that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe
  102
  (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) is regarded as one of the younger bright liberals of the Conservative Party. All I can say to that is, "My God!". If that is the sort of liberal Conservative that we are getting into the House of Commons today, there is certainly no hope whatever for the Tory Party. I am amazed at the type of speech that the hon. Member has given us when one considers that it is supposedly on a liberal basis. Another so-called liberal apparently regards it as a very good speech.
  That is typical of the Tory Party's thinking today and underlines the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who clearly pointed out that the attitude of the Conservative Party before 1964 in matters of this kind was fundamentally different from the attitude which is being adopted by the Conservative Party today.
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner indicated assent.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Lady nods. It is true. On television the other night, we saw the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, interviewed. He made the position clear that the middle way was dead for the present Conservative Party. Precisely. We have a reactionary Government of the first order who have brought the Bill forward as an adjunct to the Industrial Relations Bill. That is the objective. It is clearly intended to bolster up the efforts of the Government concerning workers who take industrial action to improve their positions.
  When the Secretary of State made his first statement in the House, I said that the Government's proposals were mean and vicious. I repeat, they are mean and vicious. The mean part—which is, in a sense, the secondary part of the Bill, although it is important—is that relating to the benefits paid to the families of strikers. That is extremely mean. The particularly vicious part, however, is that which deals with the three waiting (lays. To me, this is the most important part of the Bill.
  Very few hon. Members opposite have had personal experience of what the three waiting days mean. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends for a period themselves decided to introduce this exact proposition. In fact, Clause 2 of their Bill and Clause 7 of the present Bill are

  103
  identical, drafted in exactly the same way with the same wording. The difference between my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, however, is that my hon. Friends listened to the arguments and representations which were made by practically the whole of the Labour Party, in addition to the trade union movement outside. They were convinced by the sound and serious arguments that were put forward by hon. Members on this side. When the Bill came before the House, Clause 2 was withdrawn.
  I remember the song and dance by hon. Members opposite about the withdrawal of Clause 2. It is important that I should quote the actual situation because of the charge that was made—I think, by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—to my hon. Friends about being hypocritical. The hon. Member said he included the whole of the Opposition Front Bench. If my right hon. and hon. Friends are hypocritical, then what about the hon. Member's hon. and right hon. Friends? Let me quote from the speech made by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). This is what he said:
  "The matter which she has been discussing is of considerable importance".
  That is, the withdrawing of the Clause.
  "The Clause which she seeks to withdraw is the basis on which family allowances are being financed, and the Clause ends the payment of the first three days of insurance benefit for those who have been ill or unemployed for a period of over a fortnight."
  He went on:
  "On Second Reading, I stated our position on behalf of the Opposition absolutely clearly. I said that it was our intention to vote against the Clause and that we would remove it, so far as we were able to, in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 930.]
  That is what the hon. Gentleman said. How do hon. Members opposite have the audacity to come into this House and call my hon. Friends hypocritical when my hon. and right hon. Friends, on the basis of representations made from us, withdrew that Clause? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite said at that stage that they would have voted against that Clause. Who are the hypocrites now?
  Mr. O'Malley: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind also—and I think the House
  104
  would be wise to bear it in mind—that at the same time as the previous Government were introducing those tentative proposals they were engaged in a dialogue between themselves, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. with a view to transferring the cost of the first three days unemployment and sickness benefit to the employer and that the C.B.I. refused to do that?
  Mr. Heffer: I am very glad my hon. Friend has made that point because I was going to point out that I had a new Clause to propose to that earlier Bill, a new Clause which was intended to do precisely that, and it was on the basis of a statement made by my right hon. Friend indicating that those discussions were taking place on the three days and that my proposal would have been met by action on the part of the employers that I decided not to press that new Clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) indicated that a statement was made on this by the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would point out what the late kin Macleod said in debate on the following day, he following the usual procedure of considering the Budget speech math on one day and analysing it properly and speaking to it the next day. He said:
  "It seemed to me astonishing yesterday that as the Chancellor said what he did, not a mouse stirred on the other side of the House."
  He was wrong about that. Heifer stirred, I can assure the House, even if a mouse did not stir.
  He quoted the Chancellor as saying:
  "We propose to discontinue the payment for the first three days of sickness, injury or unemployment which is at present made after a period off work has lasted for a fortnight."
  That was the proposal by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. What did lain Macleod say? He said:
  "The method the Chancellor has adopted is bad from every conceivable point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 438.]
  That is what he said. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite cannot come to the House and challenge my right hon. and hon. Friends with hypocrisy on this issue, when hon. Members opposite made it perfectly clear at that time that had that proposal been proceeded with, they intended to vote against it.

  105
  This proposal about the three waiting days is particularly vicious. Let me relate the position which exists in the building industry in particular, although it is not confined entirely to the building industry but affects all casual workers and most workers who are manual workers. There are only 60 per cent. who are in any way involved in any sort of sickness scheme through their employers, and the sickness schemes are not always schemes which pay the full amount to a worker when he is sick. So at least 40 per cent. are in no sickness scheme at all, and those 40 per cent. rely entirely on the benefit they receive when they are off sick or unemployed for the first three days.
  Why do I say that? Because building workers in particular often are unemployed. They are often sick through no fault of their own because they are often out working in the most atrocious conditions and contract influenza and rheumatism and all sorts of illness connected with outside work, and they are forced to take time off from their employment. There was a time when the first three days were not paid, and I have seen workers struggle back to work before they ought to have gone back to work, and they ended up in wooden boxes—they died because they contracted other illnesses because of having gone back to work too early.
  Is that what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to see? I know what the argument has always been: "If you do not pay the men you will drive them back to work." The real answer to that is the answer those of us on this side of the House who understand these things have always given—that they should be paid from the first day they are off, so that they could overcome their sickness before returning to work.
  The argument about not paying for those first three days is absurd and vicious. It is the same with unemployment. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe says that the payment is not socially beneficial. Perhaps he has never been unemployed or sick. Well, I have, and I can assure him that those three days at the end of 12 days are very important to working people, and that is why this is one of the most vicious pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Would the hon. Member not acknowledge that these people he is describing as being driven back to work from desperate poverty before they have recovered are all in receipt or ought to be in receipt of supplementary benefit? The change which the Government are making will not affect their position at all. Surely that 40 per cent. of the labour force in the building industry are receiving supplementary benefit and are not affected in any way, so that it is only a very small part of that force the hon. Member is talking about who can conceivably suffer any difficulties, still less the hardships he is talking about.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member should start to learn something about payment for and the receiving of benefit before he gets up in the House and talks such utter nonsense. When a worker goes off ill or becomes unemployed he is not automatically in receipt of benefit. I never heard such utter rubbish. The hon. Member obviously knows nothing about the situation, or else he would not make a statement of that kind. When a worker goes off ill or is unemployed, for the first three days he receives absolutely no payment from anyone at all. He can only begin to receive benefit after the first three days. He will get the three days benefit if he completes 12 full days off work. Supplementary benefit is granted on the basis of necessities that may be required, and the average worker in the building industry does not automatically receive supplementary benefit.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke). Does not the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great sincerity, recognise that when a man is unemployed he receives his last week's pay during the first week after he is unemployed, and when he is sick he receives the pay to which he was entitled before he became sick. So the first few days of unemployment or sickness are compensated for, in part, by earnings which the man receives on his next habitual pay day or before he leaves his employment. It is during those first few days that his family applies for supplementary benefit. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to

  107
  recognise that the poor do get supplementary benefit during that first week if they apply for it.
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that even if the workers do apply for supplementary benefit there is no guarantee that they will automatically receive it. In any case, it is not usual for a worker to apply for supplementary benefit at that stage, because, if he is off work for any length of time through no fault of his own, he knows that after 12 days he will receive benefit for the first three days. In defending his hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman should not try to give the impression that workers automatically get supplementary benefit.
  The withdrawal of benefit for the first three days is a vicious piece of legislation. The Secretary of State said that the money saved would be used for those who were in need. I am not sure whom he regards as being in need. A whole group of people will benefit from the Budget proposals—
  Sir K. Joseph: I mean the chronic sick. This is not a Budget proposal.
  Mr. Heffer: We are talking about balancing the overall books. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that this has nothing to do with the Budget proposals. Balancing the books and getting money from someone to hand out to somebody else is all part of the same thing.
  Sir K. Joseph: We are dealing here with the National Insurance Fund. The saving goes back into the National Insurance Fund and it is out of the National Insurance Fund that the chronic sick for the first time will get £24 million.
  Mr. Heffer: As a result of the proposals in the Budget for incomes over £80 a week, Lord Stokes will get an extra £67 a week, John Clark of Plessey will get an extra £124 a week and Sir Peter Allen of I.C.I. will get an extra £100 a week. The aid to the chronic sick could have come from the money which the Government are handing back to the surtax payers. The Government should have assisted the chronic sick, the people at the bottom end of the scale and large families suffering from poverty, instead of surtax payers. The disaggregation of child investment income—another little
  108
  phrase used in the Budget—meant a hand-out of £15 million. If the Government were sincere about helping the lower paid and the chronic sick, this could have been done by other methods than withdrawing benefit for the three waiting days.
  Coming back to strikers, Clause 1(4) provides that there will be taken into consideration:
  "(b) any payment which he receives or is entitled to obtain (whether from a trade union or any other source) by reason of being without employment for any period during the stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment."
  That means that any payment will be taken into consideration, not just strike pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) I think slightly misunderstood the position. She said that it applied only to people on official strike who were receiving strike pay but it does not apply only to them. This makes nonsense of the arguments on the Industrial Relations Bill when the Government said that it was all right as long as the strikes were justified and did not involve unfair industrial practices. Apparently, it is not all right, because official strikers will be caught, and so Will unofficial strikers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden), speaking on the Industrial Relations Bill, said that the Tories talked about solidarity, standing shoulder to shoulder for their party, their regiment or their public school, and that that is understood by them. It is equally understood by the workers who stand solidly shoulder to shoulder with their trade union when they are involved in industrial disputes. It is the same tribal feeling, the same sense of solidarity. In a dispute workers help their fellow workers who are on strike by taking collections. Presumably, those collections will be taken into consideration. If this is not an attack on workers who take industrial action, what is it? The Bill is part of the Government's overall strategy of fighting the trade unions and the workers and is an adjunct to the class legislation of the Industrial Relations Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends will treat it in that way and vote against it.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: We must all congratulate the hon. Member

  109
  for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on trying to engender some heat into this debate. When my right hon. Friend announced these new policies on 29th March, the hon. Member said:
  "This is one of the most vicious and mean acts any Government had ever perpetrated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1971; Vol. 114, c. 1157.]
  Again today he made a strong attack on my right hon. Friend and the Government. However, throughout his speech and the whole of the debate there have never been more than 12 hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite.
  Mr. Alec Jones: Not at all, quite untrue.
  Mr. Page: That is quite right, though it so happens that during the earlier speeches there were over 20 Members on our benches. The difference is that we on this side support the Government and accept their views.
  Mr. Alec Jones: Surprise, surprise.
  Mr. Page: The Government realise they have not to persuade us with the logic of their arguments. On the benches opposite there is supposed to be a great attack on this fundamental injustice. The hon. Member for Walton talked about the change in the three-day rule and said that it would drive people back to work too early and would put them in a wooden box. He might have been referring to the situation a hundred years ago, but that is certainly not the case in 1971.
  Mr. Buchan: It is worse than a hundred years ago. Since 1841 there has been a general extension in walfare benefits for the workers and the Government are the first Government since that time, 130 years ago, who have consciously set out to turn back the political clock. Therefore, we are talking in terms of going back a century and that is the sort of ideology which is being put forward by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. BruceGardyne).
  Mr. Page: The present Government in the short months they have been in office have done more for the welfare of the people than any other Government. This has been proved by the keeping of our election pledges. However, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Walton, I will endeavour to keep down
  110
  the temparture of the debate and I will continue by being completely uncontroversial.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Williams) made heavy weather of her arguments against the Bill. Since she is not here at the moment, I will not embarrass her by saying that she had to defend another example of full frontal nudity in the policy of the Opposition. It is a change round and, as she said, it is always a good thing for people to change their minds. Her argument was that disregards should not be allowed to people because it would be unfair on those who would not have the income to receive them anyhow. The hon. Lady seemed rather like the café proprietor who, when asked by a customer for a cup of coffee without cream, returned five minutes later to say, "I am sorry, we are out of cream. Do you mind having it without milk?" This line of argument seems to be analogous.
  I wish to take up the hon. Lady's point about unfair dismissal for industrial misconduct under Clause 2(1). In view of the new privileges and opportunities given by the Industrial Relations Bill to individual employees, would my hon. Friend consider whether the statutory deduction under that subsection might be postponed when an employee appeals against unfair dismissal? This would appear to be a sensible use of the new industrial tribunals which are to be set up.
  The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, missed the point when he said that the Bill will lower the reputation of our social security system. I believe that it will have exactly the opposite effect. Many of my constituents and others have expressed resentment at the way they feel the present social security system is being abused. This sense of resentment will be taken away when they see that those people who have been fiddling the National Insurance Fund will be discouraged or stopped from doing so. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Newhaven dockers, and I am happy that the Government are to implement the provisions which were previously passed through the House by the Labour Government. There is a strong feeling that those involved in industrial disputes who are on strike are collecting social security benefits and at the same time

  111
  undertaking "moonlighting" jobs. When there is a massive dispute, such as the Post Office and Ford disputes, I hope that the Government will carry out investigations to see that proper safeguards are taken to ensure that social security benefits are not abused.
  Further cause for resentment on the part of many ordinary citizens is the cost of administering the paying out of social security benefits to those who are on strike. I asked a Question on this subject in early 1969 following a dispute in Ford and I was told that £96,000 was paid out to strikers, the administrative cost of this pay-out being £50,000. Many of my constituents and others felt this to be ridiculously out of proportion. On that occasion church halls were hired to pay supplementary benefits, special advertising was arranged giving details of where the pay-out was to be, and special officers were brought in from other branches of the service to hand out benefits. The Bill will give evidence to ordinary members of the public that the Government are taking steps to try to stop any abuse of the payment of supplementary benefits to those who are involved in disputes.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin said that over the last six months or so there had been a sudden escalation of payments. We know that this is largely due to the postal strike. I asked a Question on this matter quite recently and was told that supplementary benefit payments to strikers in 1964 amounted to £49,000, in 1965 to £65,000, in 1966 to £126,000, and that this figure had steadily escalated and in the first four months of this year had reached £3¾ million.
  The right hon. Member for East Ham, North felt that to change the system of paying benefits to strikers was an interference by the Government in industrial action. Certainly he spoke along those lines, though I do not suggest that he used those words. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that this is the only industrial country in the world where any kind of supplementary benefit is paid to strikers or their families, with the exception of Western Germany, where such payments are made in respect of certain official strikes. However, in Sweden, which is so often held out as an example of a country with modem and sensible industrial relations, many trade unionists and industrialists think
  112
  that the payment of benefits during an industrial dispute would be quite wrong, since the Government would be intervening in disputes between employers and employees. We have to remember that our present system is unique in the industrial world. From that basis, we have to defend it.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to Mr. Feather's remark that it seems strange that the family of a man who is in prison should be treated better than the family of a man who is on strike. I have given some thought to this point. When a man is in prison, the community has taken from him the right and opportunity to work. When a man is on strike, it might be said to be a voluntary action on his part. I think therefore that the community owes a greater debt to the family of a man in prison because it has imprisoned that family's breadwinner.
  Mr. Prentice: There is the obvious debating point that probably the man went to prison as a result of a voluntary act in the first instance. But the essential point is that, hitherto, I think that all parties have accepted the principle that we look at a family in need, we measure the need, and we provide for that need to bring the family income up to a certain basic minimum, without asking how it arrived at that position. We are now presented with a new principle which, in my view, is dangerous.
  Mr. Page: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is the kind of Friday morning seminar debate in which I should enjoy taking part. However, the Government have come to the conclusion that the present system is being abused and, for that reason, that a change has to be made.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin referred to the evidence from the Ministry of Social Security to the Donovan Commission. Perhaps I might quote two sentences from page 2318 of these minutes which defend the "grade and class" definition. The Ministry's evidence said:
  "… the present test has survived because it can be applied reasonably well over the broad complex of industry and throughout the wide range of different types of dispute; and because it lays down objective criteria of involvement which in the great majority of cases achieve an acceptable measure of fairness all-round … And in the last analysis it must be judged, as all the provisions of the national insurance scheme have to be judged,

  113
  in relation to its fairness and acceptability to the general body of contributors to the scheme and not simply those who would stand to gain or lose in any particular instance."
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: My two points were, first, that the Donovan Commission itself reached a different conclusion and, secondly, that the Ministry of Social Security evidence was given in the light of the rules then applied to the payment of supplementary benefit, which are being altered by the Bill.
  Mr. Page: I cannot be quick enough, standing on my feet, to think of a good riposte to the hon. Lady's last point. I must fall back on the look of sullen indignation of those who are presented with arguments that they cannot answer. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will save me when he winds up the debate by making a proper counter-argument. It seems that, even if one is changing part of the method of payment, that does not mean that it is necessary to change the criteria as well. However, I always bow to the hon. Lady's arguments, which are extremely convincing and courteously presented. It is possibly because of that that I find myself at a loss for words.
  Many of my hon. Friends thought that it might have been easier if my right hon. Friend, instead of presenting this Bill, had produced a Measure saying that all social security benefits should be taxable because, if they were, they could produce to the Exchequer, each year, some hundreds of millions of pounds of extra taxation. This is outside the present scheme. It would be a job for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I thought that it was right to mention it before saying that I sincerely support this Bill, which will release resources that can be used to help those who need them most.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are about 90 minutes remaining before the wind-up speeches. Six hon. Members still wish to speak. Hon. Members who catch my eye may draw their own conclusions about the approximate length of time for which they should speak.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall be brief, since I wish only to deal
  114
  with two or three of the speeches which have been made from the back benches opposite, notably that of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. BruceGardyne), who will realise that my chief reason for intervening in the debate is that he refused to give way to allow me to put one or two important points to him. For that reason, I make no apologies for intervening, certainly not to the hon. Member for South Angus.
  Once again we see a populist argument being used like that of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke), who says that "many people think" that the social security arrangements are being abused. We hear these generalisations continuously from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not assert: "I know that it is being abused, and I shall prove it." Instead, they appeal to some vague generalised feeling, which is exploited by some of the worst elements of our Press and by members of the party opposite, not based upon a factual analysis, and excused by the fact that they do not assert it themselves but say that many people feel that what they say is true. It is an argument used by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when he talks about immigration, and it is a serious state of affairs since it is one which is being used more and more in these discussions.
  The argument is a populist one to deal with the section of the Bill which, in terms of cutting people's benefits, is of less importance than the real significance of the Measure. The real importance is the cutting of the three days' unemployment and sickness benefits. Furthermore, allied to the populist attack upon strikers and disputes, which is used as an excuse for the meanest and most squalid of all provisions, by which I mean the three-day cut, is the fact that it also applies to industrial injuries.
  The basic assumption behind the Bill is that all disputes are bad. This is the asumption made by the hon. Member for South Angus whose argument I shall deal with later because I believe it more honestly reflects some of the Government's thinking. The basis may be industrial action, but industrial injuries are specified. The hon. Member for South Angus worked out the figures and

  115
  there was no opposition from the Government. His argument was that the problem has become that of the long-term strike. This contradicts the Government's argument in putting forward the Industrial Relations Bill which was claimed to deal with the short-term strike. Instead, it will tend to create long-term strikes.
  The hon. Member for South Angus said that the real problem was the longterm strikes which were taking place, and he quoted percentages. More strikes were due to wage disputes than to unfair dismissal or redundancy. Therefore, he was arguing that we should make this cut in supplementary benefit to make it more difficult for the long-term strike to continue. The hon. Gentleman was saying that the benefit allows strikes to continue and that, therefore, we should cut the benefit so that the strikes cannot continue.
  The hon. Gentleman said that these strikes were connected with wage demands. The Government are asserting that the problem facing the country is inflated wage demands. In other words, not only does the Bill tie up with the Industrial Relations Bill as a means of attacking the one eventual defence which workers have, but it ties up with their economic strategy which is particularly directed against the long-term dispute for wage benefit. Therefore, it ties up with this equally phoney argument about wage inflation.
  I stress this point because it was spelled out by speaker after speaker. The hon. Member for South Angus tried to claim that unemployment was being created because of wage demands. We have heard that argument so often. It is nonsense. What is causing unemployment is not only the failure to induce investment but the failure to create new jobs. This Bill is not unrelated to the Government's economic policy. It did not come in in terms of a pension background but in the context of saving money at the time or the Budget when this economic strategy for cutting down wage demands was unfolded.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for South Angus has returned. I have been saying one or two things about him. The real argument is that up to now employers have tended to be careful about releasing workers and causing unemployment;
  116
  they have been hoarding workers in the hope that they would get investment and growth again. But now that it is clear that the Government through this Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill and their economic policy are determined to create unemployment as a means of dealing with the workers, employers are now rapidly shedding employees because they know that they do not need to keep their labour force. An unemployed pool exists. This is happening particularly in Scotland, as the hon. Member for South Angus knows.
  Therefore, it is no use putting forward a "pensions" argument. It is no use trying to put the blame on these unnamed people who say that it is because of the scroungers. I wish that people would accept responsibility for their own case instead of putting forward that kind of argument.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman keeps representing my case and putting it in the populist way. Will he accept, first, that every hon. Member on this side has said that the category of beneficiary attacked by the Bill does not consist of scroungers, but of people whose needs cannot be justified in our list of priorities in the Welfare State? The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that this argument is being used in a populist way. But it is dangerous to disregard public feeling in a matter of this kind. The Press is not responsible for this state of affairs. This feeling exists and the Press is not responsible for it, and it causes a grave lack of public confidence in the welfare system and so leads to resistance on the part of the public to do anything to improve the welfare system. This will have very harmful effects.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is now saying that, despite the lengthy introduction about scroungers, this is not the justification for the Bill. If so, it is even worse, because he is using a populist argument and not basing it on anything.
  I accept that one problem which we face is that created by the large-scale scrounger. However, all who have examined the complaints know that they are rare indeed. The Bill is not dealing with that problem. On the one hand, it is dealing with those involved in disputes and, on the other, with people

  117
  who are sick, unemployed, or suffering from industrial injuries.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill deals with those who most people feel —the hon. Gentleman is now including himself—should not get the benefit. Does he apply that to Pay-As-You-Earn? It seems that he does. Would he also apply it to those employers who for years have, for example, been shouting about S.E.T. and that they are entitled to get it back? The hon. Member for South Angus has said that one objection was that even employers who got the refund had for some months had to make a loan, as it were, to the Government. I am sure that I have heard the hon. Gentleman on this matter. If not, I should be very surprised. But hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying that, despite the fact that the money is due to them, they will not get it; it will be cut off in another way.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Buchan: Yes. This is involved in the disregard. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying that even a tax which has been paid and is now due to be returned will be taken into consideration in cutting down on the amount of the disregard.
  I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. John Page) that I was exaggerating when I said that this is the most reactionary Government we have had since the last century. The analogy is correct. I do not mean that they are the hardest or the toughest of Governments. I mean that they are the first Government since Governments were involved directly in the nature of society, welfare, industry and the economy—so far we have called Governments reactionary when they have failed to move forward—they are the first Government to turn back the clock consciously and deliberately.
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to their colleague, Lord Hailsham. At the weekend the noble Lord said that we were facing a new situation and that we were no longer automatically to be involved in Government in this way.
  Even the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) says this, though he does not push it back as far as I do, to 1841;
  118
  he pushes it back to 1931. In attacking our tentative proposals which were tied up with the discussion of the three days being paid by the employer—I think that this is justified—the hon. Member for Hertford said that this was the first proposal to cut sickness and unemployment benefit since 1931. He at least recognised that this concept was 40 years behind the times. I said that the Government had pushed the clock back 130 years, to 1841 and the beginning of social welfare, but the hon. Gentleman said that they had pushed it back 40 years. That is why we say that this is the most reactionary Government that we have had.
  The meanness and squalidness of the Bill tie in with the Government's economic policy of deliberately crating unemployment. Its provisions tie in, too, with their policy of arousing the fear of people about scroungers. I accept that it is a bad thing if the public are not convinced of the value of the legislation that we pass. The hon. Member for South Angus speaks with the concepts of the Sunday Post, and with the tones of Harrow or Eton. The Sunday Post is probably the most reactionary newspaper in Britain, and I have never heard the hon. Gentleman differing from any of its editorial views. Today we have heard him expressing the politics of "oor Willie" and "the Broons".
  The Bill represents a deliberate attempt to attack the workers of this country and to turn back the clock in terms of social benefit, and it is these aspects which will condemn the Government as days go by.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: The debate is set against the background of the social security offered by the Welfare State. We on this side of the House support the idea of helping the needy in times of difficulty. We believe that help should be given to those whose need is the greatest.
  What worries me, and what has worried people everywhere, is the abuse that has been taking place of the system of giving help, and all our efforts should be directed to seeing that help is given where it is most necessary. No matter how good a scheme may appear to be, in practice it will be a good scheme only if it provides

  119
  help for the most deserving in our community, and we must always look dispassionately at any scheme we introduce to ensure that that is what it does.
  One factor which the Opposition fail to recognise is that times have changed. Patterns of social behaviour and the means of helping the community change, too, and these factors must be taken into account. The pattern of providing help has changed considerably since the inception of the Welfare State. Not only the Government but people and industry have moved with the times, and these are factors which we must consider when we look at the system as a whole. It is important to help those whose need is the greatest. We must give them the greatest help, and it is my opinion that the country will welcome my right hon. Friend's action in introducing these proposals.
  One of the first letters that I received as a Member of the House was from an old-age pensioner, previously a Socialist supporter, complaining about the abuse of the system for providing help. She complained about fit and able-bodied strikers getting more help than was given to pensioners and to people in real need, and that view is held not only by the majority of old-age pensioners but by the majority of ordinary people, too.
  In view of the feelings of the people whom we govern, it would be irresponsible for the Government not to take the action that they propose. We cannot ignore the views of ordinary people, and it is fantastic to hear the arguments advanced by the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). She does not think that it is wrong to have a system which provides financial support for those who are in a better financial position than most.
  The Government's proposals will help strikers during a time of need, but in return the Government expect to be repaid when those men return to work and get good wages. What is wrong with that? There could not be a better system. I do not see how anyone can argue that strikers should be given extra financial support, bearing in mind that the decision to strike is their own. It is they who decide to strike, after considering all the economic factors involved.
  120
  A decision to strike is usually made after considering what is being given up and what is to be gained. These are the factors which a man takes into account when he raises his hand to show his support for a strike in favour of a wage claim. He strikes for wages and conditions which he considers will be better than those under which he is working. In many cases he puts in for a wage claim which is greater than the amount received by some people receiving supplementary benefits. He forgets that they have to live on these benefits week after week throughout the year.
  Such is the importance of social security benefits during a strike that sometimes instructions are issued by the unions telling their members what to claim. It is wrong that social security benefits should be considered as an adjunct to the strikers' funds, and the fact that this is done annoys those who are not in sympathy with the strike. This is the kind of thing about which people complain. We on these benches recognise the right of a man to strike. What we quarrel with is the method of financing strikes.
  Complaints have been made about income tax refunds being taken into consideration in deciding what benefits should be paid. Appreciable sums of money are paid by way of refund, and these are part of the resources available to people on strike. No comparison can be made with repayments of S.E.T. The Government are saying that income tax refunds must be set against claims for social security benefits. Would anyone say that a firm should have its S.E.T. refund ignored for the purpose of assessing its taxable income?
  If I am given the chance of choosing between giving financial support to the striker, or giving a lot more help to the old and sick in the community, I shall have no hesitation in saying what should be done. I should choose to give help to the old and the sick every time. The Opposition have adopted an amazing attitude. They support the striker, right or wrong.
  The Secretary of State has my wholehearted support for his action. I particularly support him in respect of Clause 7 and the rather difficult question of the three waiting days—a provision that the Opposition claim to be heartless. No one

  121
  likes having taken away from him payments that he has always had. He would be less than human if he did. But it is not merely a question of the amount involved in the three waiting days; it is a question of the use of the extra money to support people in time of need.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the hon. Member give us an estimate of the extent to which the pensions of the elderly—the people with whom he is particularly concerned—are likely to be increased if the whole of the money involved in the three waiting days proposal is devoted to an increase in the kind of pensions? What weekly increase would each pensioner get?
  Mr. Kinsey: That is a fatuous argument. We must consider the whole concept of the Welfare State and the total amount of savings that might be made. There have been changes in respect of benefits for the over-80s and the long-term sick. Times have changed, and we should amend the system to take account of that fact.
  More work schemes are available. Some workers need not claim during times of sickness, because they are staff-paid. There is no need for them to draw social security payment at any time. Even without work schemes, various other kinds of help are available. An ordinary worker on the factory floor may be getting sickness benefit plus related earnings benefit, and income tax rebate; he may have contributed to a private friendly society; his trade union may have a sickness payment system; he may have paid his mortgage through a firm that provides certain facilities and has an in-built insurance scheme, so that it pays his mortgage repayments and rate repayments when he is sick. He has no stamp to pay. He has no bus fare to pay. There is a works collection for him. He is not penalised at all, and he will not be penalised by the three waiting ways provision. He is in a better position when he is sick than when he is working.
  Hon. Members opposite are wrong in saying that this will be a great hardship to everybody. It will not; it will affect different people in different ways. Those who are not helped in other ways have social security payments to fall back upon if they are in a lower income group.
  122
  Any system that is abused must be examined.
  I was told by a wages clerk that it is possible to abuse the three waiting days system. By going sick for three days on the Friday night before the holidays and drawing sickness payments plus holiday payments people are abusing the system. We must bear in mind the things that can go wrong with any system that we introduce. People who see a system being abused are apt to ask us, "What are you going to do about it?". I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has set up a commission to inquire into all the factors. People become incensed when they see the abuse of a system that everyone considers to be worth while and necessary.
  Hon. Members opposite have contributed to welfare schemes in the past. They should be anxious to see that such schemes are not abused. I am sure that when they introduced a certain system they did so in order to help the needy.
  Hon. Members opposite have expressed concern about unemployment, but the circumstances surrounding the unemployment position today are different from what they were. When people draw unemployment benefit for the first time they are often backed by a redundancy payment, which is a considerable help to them.
  Mr. Heffer: The Labour Party brought that in.
  Mr. Kinsey: The Opposition brought in that scheme. But they must relate it to existing conditions, and certain aspects need to be re-examined. The provision concerning the three waiting days is not so important, even at the worst time of unemployment.
  Mr. Heffer: Men workers, especially in casual industries such as building, ship repairing and shipping, rarely receive redundancy pay. The three waiting days provision means a great deal to them.
  Mr. Kinsey: I agree that a case can be made out for those workers, but not for all workers. We must seek to help those in the greatest need. The Government are doing exactly the right thing—and they are doing what hon. Members opposite want done. I do not see how they can argue against us.

  123
  I welcome the Government's determination to re-examination our welfare schemes not in a harsh, punitive way but so as to give most help to the needy. I welcome their determined effort to see that help goes to those who need it most, when they need it most. The Government are doing a great job. More strength to their arm!
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I do not want to follow the theme of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), but he talked about one worker who would get more money when he was sick than when he was working. There are always exceptions which prove the rule, people who slip through the net. If 5,000 workers at a factory were told that they could take the next three or four weeks off sick, they would not accept the challenge, because the loss of their bonuses and overtime would mean a substantial reduction in their standard or living.
  This Government's attitude to industrial relations shows that they do not understand that the people whom the hon. Member referred to are a minority and that the vast majority feel that they are discriminated against. This was the reason for the pressure for the reform of the superannuation benefit, to avoid the Tory fraud of the superannuation "bricks". Many millions of workers get no superannuation, and no unemployment sickness or industrial injuries benefit apart from what the State provides. They feel that they are being singled out for special treatment in Measures like this.
  The reason for the tremendous uproar and resentment over the three waiting days provision for allowance for supplementary benefit under the previous Government was that it was aimed at one class of workers. For unfair dismissal and disallowance of benefit on leaving a job voluntarily a man can anneal but he gets nothing in the meantime and may have nothing but supplementary benefit.
  One man who had worked all his life for two firms and had been 22 years with the second told me at my advice bureau that he had lost his job, and signed on at the labour exchange. Being an independent man, he refused the first
  124
  job that he was offered, and then found that he was disallowed unemployment benefit. He told me how much he was opposed to scroungers and people who get benefits they are not entitled to, but asked, "Why should this happen to me? I am a worker. Why should I be treated in this way?".
  Many people who criticise the payment of these benefits to other people soon realise, when circumstances change—as they are changing rapidly at the moment, with the present rate of unemployment—that they too can be affected. Workers at Rolls-Royce and at the Irlam steel works, who have worked for the same firm all their lives, are being thrown into a world of which they have been completely unaware and which is very frightening to them. They find that their security is gone and their normal life has changed.
  This is what concerns me in any proposal to change the benefits for strikers. At the bottom of the scale, when a person is thrown on to State benefit, to which he has contributed all his working life, he faces a great deal of difficulty.
  We are all in favour of people who are not entitled to benefits not being able to get them, but this means that people with a genuine case come under severe scrutiny from committees, the employment exchange and the social security office—a procedure with which they are completely unfamiliar.
  An article in The Times Business News talks of the difficulties of two executives in finding other suitable employment after working in senior jobs in industry. It explains that their resources are running out, that they are having problems in educating their children, and it outlines the effect on the families and particularly on the morale of their wives. That situation can be multiplied 800,000 times with our present unemployment. Tens of thousands of homes are facing these problems every week.
  The Secretary of State talked of people having more resources and a higher standard of living than ever before. Quite true, but it is all relative. In my days in industry, it was when there was a shortage of work or material and average earnings fell that the real problems came. Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people live on their earnings.

  125
  If they are getting reasonable money, they want a better home, a car, proper furnishings and holidays. These are not luxuries; they are necessities in present-day life. They help to create the wealth which enables people to enjoy these benefits.
  We used to say in industry, "You are only one week away from the dole. When you are off work you will immediately be thrown on to its resources." This was particularly true in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, when the Minister talks about the three waiting days and obtaining benefit at the end of the 10 days or 12 days, I would remind him that the three waiting days period is vitally important to the average British family. Hon. Members opposite say that the resources exist, that people can apply for supplementary benefit, but the point is that the sort of people whom we are talking about are not on the level which allows them to apply immediately for supplementary benefit. A worker earning £20 or £22 a week may lose his job or become sick. He may have a wife and two or three children. In such a home after a fortnight's sickness, with the commitments that such a family has in order to maintain an average standard of life, every penny counts, even today.
  Some of us on this side of the House, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and myself, have known what it is to look to those three days when we have been sick. We are aware of the antagonism among many workers who feel that they do not get the full benefit on the five days. Jim Griffiths, the former Member for Llanelly, told the Parliamentary Labour Party that it was the intention of a future Labour Government, after 1951, to abolish the three waiting days—in fact, to abolish the waiting period altogether. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) referred to the three waiting days—
  Mr. Alex Eadie: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? He is on a very important point. He will appreciate that to workers who are engaged in heavy industry, who are liable to accidents, such as miners and on-cost workers in the mining industry, the proposal is sheer brutality. This is penalising men who
  126
  are doing a very important job. Would not my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Orme: I agree. In the mining, heavy engineering and building industries the workers are particularly affected. They are also affected in uncertain or casual employment. The Minister said that this would affect only a minority of cases, but in fact on every occasion this three-day waiting period will be removed.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman agrees. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the mining industry. Many manual workers and those in manufacturing industry feel that they are treated as second-class citizens. In the manufacturing industry they feel that sickness pay has been slow to come. Superannuation benefit is still not prevalent throughout many parts of industry. The benefits that some workers get—and I do not complain that they get them—are still not received by many millions of industrial workers. Those workers feel that they are being maltreated. They regard the situation with real bitterness and anger.
  Sir K. Joseph: I know the hon. Gentleman is treating a serious subject seriously. I very much wish that the British trade unions had given the emphasis that many trade union movements in Europe have given to improving superannuation, pension and sick pay treatment. Can he not use his influence to get some more of these fringe benefits in the trade union sights?
  Mr. Orme: Some of us have had some experience of this. May I refer to the Engineering Employers' Federation, of which the right hon. Member may know something. It was very difficult for us to get a basic wage of over £10 7s. 8d., even 10 years ago. To have gone to the engineering employers talking about superannuation and fringe benefits would never have got us anywhere at all.
  We are dealing still with millions of workers who are dependent on the State scheme. The Government are discriminating directly against those workers, and the manual workers in particular. I remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the Tory Party conference. I

  127
  was interested in it because he was under great pressure from his party. Many people in his party, such as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), want to go even further than the Minister has gone and they have already expressed their views in the debate today. The Minister then defended the current situation. He highlighted the fact that only one-tenth of strikes went beyond the second or third week. I felt at the time that he was urging caution. That caution has now apparently gone out of the window. We have got to take this as a package because it will impinge on all sectors of our industrial society. It will affect the man who is out of work because another man in a similar category, or a similar firm, is on strike, which Donovan asked to be changed, but which the Minister has said we cannot change. This is because of the political climate in his own party. This will affect the person who suffers industrial injury, the man who is unemployed and the man who becomes sick. It will introduce into our society this means test aspect.
  The Minister glibly said this afternoon that if people are entitled to supplementary benefit they must go and get it. But the vast majority of workers want to avoid supplementary benefit. They want to stand on their own feet, as the Government so often exhort them to do. They want to have their independence, through decent wages and working conditions—the sort of conditions which the Minister has talked about and which his friends in industry have been so slow in giving. But this is an adjunct to the Industrial Relations Bill.
  The Minister dwelt on the Post Office strike, an official dispute, and the amount that the postal workers' families got in the way of supplemenary benefit. The families will be penalised, by this Bill. A man who has been thrown out of work by another strike, or by a lock-out, may be out for many weeks. When he goes back, he will be forced to ask for a sub because of lack of supplementary benefit or, if he has had supplementary benefit in the meantime, he will have to pay it back. The employer will have the right to deduct it.
  What about interference with the Truck Acts and the right of a person to his wages? It is another infringement
  128
  of those Acts. It is an infringement of individual freedom if ever there were one. Schedule 1 is difficult to understand but, as I read it, the employer who does not deduct that money can be surcharged. Is it thought that such action will improve industrial relations? This provision should be put alongside the Industrial Relations Bill, and all the legalistic jargon and paraphernalia in that Measure. We talk about the collective freedom of the trade unions, but such provisions as this will create real bitterness, because the industrial worker will see that he has been singled out while other sections of the community get away with it.
  Those of us with industrial experience sometimes speak rather passionately on this subject because we have spent many years on the shop floor trying to improve conditions and industrial relations; trying to get a strong trade union movement; trying to create the type of industrial democracy and democratic Socialist society that we want to see. Instead, we are faced with the introduction of bitterness and antagonism. Hon. Members opposite may say that they do not see anyone marching with banners at the moment, but there will be anger, bitterness and antagonism when the workers realise the implications of a Bill which in any case will save only a small sum of money. It does not even close a door to abuse, but only does what the Tory Party wants to see implemented. This is a political Measure, and we on this side must recognise it to be so.
  We are opposed to the whole Bill. We will fight it in Committee. Out of the circumstances which the Government will create, we will seek to come forward with much more far-reaching elements of reform which will ensure that justice is done. The workers will demand it. If we did not fight the last election on industrial affairs, I believe that we shall have to fight the next election on that basis. To listen to some hon. Members opposite who are supposed to be on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party makes one shudder, but it shows the division there is between the two sides. I shall be pleased and proud tonight to vote against the Bill, and to fight against it in the country.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Curran: I listened attentively, as I always do, to the

  129
  hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and I hope that it will not shock him if I say that I agree with quite a lot of what he said. I agree without qualification that in our society the worker is in many respects at a disadvantage compared with other sections of the community. It is true that he is treated with discriminatory unfairness in respect of, for instance, notice of dismissal, illness, holidays, redundancy pay, and so on. With all of that I agree.
  I only wish that the hon. Member had been a little more explicit and had said that, to a great extent, the responsibility for this differential disadvantage suffered by the working class lies with the trade union movement. I very much wish that our unions had done what the German and American unions have done—to demand, as our own trade unions could so easily have done, something like parity of economic esteem for the worker. The unions could have done it. They could have exploited the sellers' market for labour in this country after the war as ruthlessly as did the American unions, and I wish that they had done so.
  When the hon. Member concentrated on that part of the Bill dealing with the three-day waiting period, I listened with almost complete agreement, and I tell him frankly that, if that were the only question before us, I should find it difficult to vote for it. I recognise the force and substance of his case in respect particularly of the worker living on what might be called the economic margin; the man with a small income and a large family, for whom three days must seem an economic eternity. I recognise that.
  But in some ways the most significant aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech was how little, how lightly and how ineffectually, by contrast with his usual form, he addressed himself to the main issue of the Bill. The main issue is not the waiting period, but what attitude the State should take in 1971 towards men who strike. How far shall the State provide support for the families of strikers? We are arguing about the rules that govern the payment of public money to the wives and dependants of strikers.
  The Bill makes changes in the rules. Those changes are right. I was interested to notice in the hon. Gentleman's speech that, effective as he was in the areas to
  130
  which I have referred, when he dealt with this part of the Bill it seemed that his speech was simply a vacuum. I want to fill that vacuum by quoting someone whom he will not dismiss as a Tory stooge, or as a Fascist hyena, or a spokesman for the military-industrial complex, or any other such person. Like most of us, I imagine, I have been reading with great interest the reminiscences of the gentleman we still call George Brown. I hope that I am not out of order in calling him George Brown. That is the name by which posterity will know him, as we do. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Gentleman opposite will listen to me as carefully as I listened to them, without barracking.
  In this autobiography, which is being read with great curiosity by us as well as by his colleagues, George Brown has something to say which is very relevant to the Bill. I do not mean what he has to say about his former Prime Minister or about his former Cabinet colleagues. Piquant and diverting as these statements are, I forbear from quoting them. I quote what he has to say about strikes—textually, with no omissions.
  "If you are called out on strike now, it is not like the old days. You don't have to worry about the rent or the mortgage, because they will be suspended. You don't have to worry about your wife and children, because they will be taken care of by social security. You don't even have to bother much about whether your union is going to give you strike pay or not, because there are various sources of income open to you, like a bit of window cleaning, and you don't necessarily have to tell the tax inspector exactly what you earn. And if you stay out a couple of weeks the Chancellor starts paying back the tax money which, in your view, he quite improperly took away from you in the first instance. Of course, there are still people who suffer severely in a strike, but for quite a lot of people a strike nowadays is just a form of paid holiday."
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question of being on strike being simply a matter of luxury, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would comment on the fact that when a strike takes place, for instance, the Post Office strike or the Ford strike, a great deal of attention is paid by television commentators and by the public media generally as to how difficult it is for a family, particularly a housewife with children, while the husband is on strike, and that theme is played up rather than the fact that they are living in the lap of luxury.
  Mr. Curran: I cannot see the point of that interruption. It is not addressed to me. Is it addressed to the absent astral body of George Brown? Perhaps it is. It seems to have no relevance to what I am saying. I was quoting what George Brown says about strikes.
  Mr. Skinner: I say that he is wrong.
  Mr. Curran: That comes as a surprise. I should never have dreamed that the hon. Gentleman would make that comment. But the hon. Gentleman can fight this out. It is a private war. I am not concerned to take sides in it.
  George Brown gives it as his opinion that in the England of 1971 the economic conditions of men who strike are very different from those in the early days of the Labour movement. I should have thought that that was not only elementary but self-evident everywhere—except, perhaps, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), though I should think it is self-evident even there.
  Therefore, like the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who opened the debate, and most of the speakers who followed her, I address myself to the question of fact: what sort of rules should we make for the payment of money to the wives and children of strikers? That is what we are arguing about, and basically this is a Bill to change the rules.
  People outside the House will agree, and I invite the House to agree, that when a man strikes we should not leave his wife and children to suffer because he is on strike. I doubt if anyone would be in favour of that. I doubt if anybody would suggest—I certainly would not suggest, either directly or by innuendo—that we should drive a man back to work by starving his wife and children. I believe that we should give to the wife and family of a man on strike as much money as they need to maintain the standard of living which the State regards as the minimum. That is not the question.
  The question is—who should pay for this aid? Should the money which rightly goes to the wife and children of the striker come out of the pockets of the taxpayer, or should it come out of the pockets of the striker? The Bill does not
  132
  go as far in that direction as many of us think that it should, but that is the root question. Whose duty is it to maintain the wife and family of a man on strike? Is it his duty, or is it the duty of the taxpayer? I believe that it is the man's duty. When he is on strike he cannot do it. Therefore, the State should and does provide the wife and family with the support that they need; and I for one will always say that it should go on doing so.
  Mr. O'Malley: The striker is also a taxpayer.
  Mr. Curran: He is a taxpayer, but he is not the only taxpayer. The great body of taxpayers are entitled to an opinion of their own. That can be said even of the trade union movement. There are about nine million people in unions affiliated to the T.U.C., but there are about 25 million people at work. Therefore, the T.U.C. speaks at the most for no more than two in five of the working population.
  Therefore, I ask, as the Bill asks, whether it is the business of the taxpayer to provide by way of gift the money which is needed to support the wife and family of a striker while he is on strike. I reply that it is not. I am not disputing the right to strike. However, when a man exercises his right to strike, that is a voluntary act. Exercising the right to strike does not confer upon him the right to offload on to others his burden as a husband and a father. It is for him to support his wife and children. The duty which rests upon him is not one that he can shuffle off on the plea that he has gone on strike. He cannot discharge that burden while he is on strike, but I see no reason why he should not discharge it out of his earnings after he returns to work.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend is arguing that it is the State's duty to support the wife and family of a striker. Does he agree that if the man's union is responsible for the strike it should participate in helping a man when he is on strike?
  Mr. Curran: I agree. I repeat that striking is a voluntary act. Nobody does it with a revolver thrust into his ribs. If a man strikes, he must expect to shoulder—and if it is a union that calls him out on strike the union must expect to

  133
  shoulder—the consequences of that action. If a man goes on official strike, it is the union's business and not the taxpayer's business to look after him. If the taxpayer decides, as I think that the taxpayer should decide, to support the man's wife and family while a man is on strike, I see no reason why that support should not be granted by way of loan and not by way of gift. This basically is what we are arguing about—the terms on which the taxpayer shall grant help, as he should grant help, to the dependants of those on strike.
  When we come to examine the way in which the Bill deals with it and when we listen to the speeches from hon. Members opposite there is one thing which is instantly apparent—the very wide gap between those members of the Opposition who have sat in Government and those who have not. Those who have sat in government have become aware of the economic realities involved in supplementary benefit for strikers. Those who have sat in government have been pretty candid about it. I was interested to listen to the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin. She took a different line from that taken by some back bench critics opposite. She has been in government once and no doubt hopes to be there again. She is not giving any hostages to fortune. She recognises that no State can provide money, ad lib, for people on strike, whether it be a Labour-controlled State or a Tory-controlled State.
  The same consideration applies to the invisible man of this debate. There has been floating over the benches opposite a body of whose presence we are aware but which none of us can see. We sit here almost like people at an economic seance. We have not got him with us corporeally although we have him here non-corporeally—the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). He is the invisible man of any debate now about social security.
  Instead of coming here and taking part in debates on social security the right hon. Gentleman prefers to sit behind a pillar of cloud in Great Turnstile, hurling thunderbolts—and long may he continue to hurl them. The more thunderbolts he hurls the more we welcome it. I have been looking at what the right hon. Gentleman said in the New Statesman about one of the matters which has
  134
  caused a good deal of argument during the debate, namely the question of disregards—whether we should disregard, for instance, the tax refunds.
  The right hon. Gentleman who now edits the New Statesman was the social security overlord; he was on the inside track, and he is not talking as an outside commentator. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said in the New Statesman of 4th September last:
  "For many years the law has been interpreted as requiring the Commission"
  —that is the Supplementary Benefits Commission—
  "to disregard refunds in assessing the needs of a striker's family. This mainly benefits the higher-paid worker. Indeed, under the present system the more you earn and the less you need assistance the more you are entitled to claim from the Government. Quite apart from its economic effect in encouraging strikes and its outrageous social implications the greatest doubts have been voiced in the highest legal circles about this interpretation of the law."
  Here we have the former Secretary of State for Social Security proclaiming, once he is safely outside the area of decision in Whitehall, that the present system, which will be changed by the Bill, has been, in recent years, a system with outrageous implications which, in his own words, gives more money to the better-off and less money to the worse-off.
  Mr. Buchan: Would the hon. Member keep in mind the argument being adduced here? The situation which was regarded as being outrageous was to back the argument in favour of a redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the less well-off. This Measure is being introduced as part of the Budget proposals to redistribute wealth from the less-well-off to the wealthy.
  Mr. Curran: That may be an argument, to be pressed against my right hon. Friend or against me, but I am sure that it is not an argument the hon. Gentleman can press against his right hon. Friend who edits the New Statesman. If he is shooting at that target he is indeed shooting at the air. It is idle for him to say that in reply to this quotation. I suggest that he restrains himself and makes the interruption at a more appropriate time. This is the wrong time to make it.
  I want to take another quotation from the same inspired source. Another

  135
  matter being debated here, which my right hon. Friend proposes to put right, is that of strike refunds, the preferential treatment given to a man on strike as compared with a man who becomes redundant or unemployed. Again the former Secretary of State for Social Security, the present editor of the New Statesman, wrote:
  "It takes three or four weeks before a worker who is made redundant receives his tax refund. Not so the striker, who is treated much more sympathetically. Indeed, the Ministry, the employer and the Inland Revenue all collaborate to ensure that he gets his refund in the first week. Sir Keith"—
  that is, my right hon. Friend—
  "might very well ask himself why, if you voluntarily withdraw your labour, you should be treated so much better by everybody concerned than if you are a genuine victim of unemployment."
  My right hon. Friend indeed might ask himself that question. He has, in fact, taken the right hon. Gentleman's advice. He has asked himself that question, and the Bill is part of his answer to it.
  I invite any hon. Member opposite who disagrees with that argument to address himself, not to my right hon. Friend, who is completely guiltless, but to the former Secretary of State for Social Security, who has now departed the battlefield.
  Mr. Orme: Perhaps some of us have addressed that argument in the past, as we are addressing it now. The only point that I would like to make to the hon. Member is that when we addressed it to either the previous or the present Minister, we were also talking beyond them to those who advise them in the Ministry and in the Treasury, where many of these cock-eyed ideas come from which many of us who have had experience in industry basically refute.
  Mr. Curran: The hon. Member may well be right. I should hate to pry into the processes of perception and reproduction in Whitehall. If the hon. Member wants to do it, he can do so by himself. It is no use his asking me to come with him. I would no more think of doing that than of going into a cinema in Birmingham.
  I repeat, we are debating whether we shall change the rules under which the State comes to the rescue of the dependants of men who go on strike. I believe
  136
  that we are right to change the rules, because we are right to recognise that a strike is something which affects the taxpayer. The taxpayer cannot stand back from it. I got the impression when I listened to some of the speeches from hon. Members opposite—I could identify them, but perhaps I had better not—that some of them regard strikes as intrinsically desirable, as a sort of art form like painting, playwriting or ballet dancing, and that they regard the Supplementary Benefits Commission as a sort of branch of the Arts Council, something which ought to supply money for these cultural activities without asking any questions about it.
  That is a point of view. I wish that it could be argued a bit more explicitly than it has been argued. It has been argued largely by inference, but I wish that it were argued dogmatically. There is, I suppose, a case for it, but it is no good expecting any British Government to believe that case. No British Government can consider that whether we have strikes or whether we do not is a matter of theoretical interest, like whether we have a visit from the Russian ballet or from the Monte Carlo ballet. A British Government must take the position, and the British taxpayer must take the position, that strikes affect our bread and butter and that, therefore, we are entitled to look, and look narrowly, at the rules whereby we provide help for the dependants of men on strike.
  We have got to do two things at once. First, we must ensure that the people who are dependent upon strikers are looked after adequately and in a civilised fashion. Secondly, we must ensure that the rules under which they are looked after adequately and in a sympathetic fashion are rules which do not make it easy for people to go on strike.
  I repeat, we cannot regard strikes with neutrality. Even Mr. Brown does not regard them with neutrality. Who am I to say that Mr. Brown is wrong? Mr. Brown says, quite rightly, and I should have thought it a platitude at this time, that strikes are economically harmful. We should not, therefore, encourage people to go on strike by relieving them not only for the time being but for all time of their economic responsibilities and of their liability to support their wives and families. We should ensure that that liability remains firmly tied

  137
  around their necks. It is socially desirable that it should be. It is socially necessary that it should be. At present we do not impose that liability on strikers, and that is one reason, to which, again, Mr. Brown is witness, why strikes have proliferated so immensely.
  This Bill takes a long step, though not all the steps, to restoring a sense of economic responsibility to men who have gone on strike, and for that reason I welcome it warmly.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. James Sillars: I intend to refer to one or two things which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) said. There was a basic contradiction between the remarks which he made at one point in relation to British trade unions acting in the same manner as German trade unions and American trade unions and the winding up part of his speech which was an attack on trade unions as looking after only themselves and not paying attention to the general needs of the general community. I will deal with that later.
  I found his speech very entertaining. He is an excellent debater, and I am very grateful to him for refreshing my memory by quotations from both the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and Mr. George Brown, who now sits in another place. The quotations merely confirmed my own point of view that both gentlemen were completely out of touch with the rank and file of this party before the last election. Indeed, there may in both those quotations be some clues why the Labour Party did not win in June, 1970. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's speech will be read with great interest by all constituency Labour Parties which buy HANSARD.
  We have heard that the Secretary of State is, allegedly, one of the most able men and one of the most compassionate men in this Cabinet. I have looked for some time for signs of his compassion. He will have to do better than he has with his family income proposals and this Bill to make him one of the most compassionate of the Tories anywhere in the country. As to his ability, I have not had opportunity of watching him over the years, but if he is to register with me and some of us on this side of the House as an able person he will have to deliver his next Bill a great deal better than he
  138
  delivered this for Second Reading today, because he left a good deal to be desired by way of information to hon. Members.
  I will give him this—he is a reasonably clever politician, for this Bill contains two elements. One is a very important element, the abolition of the three waiting days and the camouflage of the £1·5 million which is taken away from people who go on strike. This is what is to be promoted to the public in the hope that, should they become interested in this abolition, they will be blinded by the headlines and not realise that they are being robbed of £19 million by this Bill. We will give to the Secretary of State at least that he is politically clever if nothing else. There are two major issues. One is the proposition in the Bill about the reduction in cash made available to the families of people on strike.
  We recently discussed on the Industrial Relations Bill the right to picket. Members of the Conservative Party made passionate speeches about a man's home and a man's family being sacrosanct. They said that no one should ever worry a man's family even by walking around outside his home and that the last thing they would ever do would be to damage a man's family simply because he was on strike. They will have to eat their words tonight because the Bill seriously affects the families of men who have withdrawn their labour.
  Mr. Vic Feather, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., was right when he said that there was a queer part of the Bill—the proposition that the family of a man in prison, let us say for committing the great train robbery, is in a privileged position compared with the family of a man who is on strike. No Conservative has answered that charge—
  Mr. Curran: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to have a shot? The distinction is elementary. I decline to believe that it is not just as obvious to Vic Feather as it is to the hon. Gentleman. When a man goes on strike, it is a voluntary act. Does the hon. Gentleman know of anybody who has broken into a gaol?
  Mr. Sillars: No one breaks into gaol voluntarily, but it is a voluntary decision to rob a train. As a consequence, a man might go to prison, but the initial act is voluntary and it is in his pecuniary interests, as it is with a striker.
  Mr. Curran: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not take refuge in that semantic cat's-cradle. People go on strike because they choose to do so. Nobody ever chooses to go to gaol. I make that statement with almost complete confidence. A man goes to prison because the State puts him there. The State never puts a man on strike.
  Mr. Sillars: If we had the time and were being pedantic, we could prove that men occasionally land in gaol because they want to go there, as the hon. Gentleman opposite knows full well if he has read probation reports.
  Mr. James Dempsey: When my hon. Friend speaks of the great train robbery, will he bear in mind that these men were not sent to gaol for robbing the train but because they were caught.
  Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend asks me to bear that in mind, and I will do so. The Government seem to believe that this Measure will help to arrest strikes. It will do nothing of the kind. It will merely change the character of industrial conflict. I support the contention that we should provide supplementary benefit for the families of men on strike. We should not punish the families of people who are exercising a right. If the Conservatives seek to sharpen the conflict in industry in this fashion, the result will be conflict of a nature we have never seen before. Once men are on strike, it is extremely difficult to get them back. The more commitment the men have to debt—and that is the practical consequence of the Bill—the more determined they will be to get what they set out to get in the first place.
  The contentions of the Secretary of State when he spoke about Clause 7 were ludicrous. He said that there was no great loss simply because one was taking away a retrospective payment at the end of 13 weeks. He showed a total lack of understanding of working budgeting. He should know that working-class people budget in totality. Often the housewife or grandmother knows that the Co-op dividend is coming along—that was when there was such a thing as Co-op dividend—or that some other money will be coming into the family
  140
  budget and she will take it into account in deciding what has to be spent. The three waiting days, whether they come at the end of three weeks or 13 weeks, are important to all families.
  The Secretary of State said that there has been a transformation of our society since the early 1950s. He certainly did not say that during the election campaign last June. In fact, he told the people that they were extremely hard up, that they were being hit by rising prices and that their standard of living was falling. Certainly nothing has happened since 18th June last year which has led to any transformation to justify an abolition of a person's entitlement to three waiting days.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that some people were covered by employers' schemes, but it has been pointed out from this side of the House that thousands of workers are not covered by such schemes. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that we should act like the German and United States trade unions. If next year our trade unions take industrial action to secure from every employer a guarantee of coverage during the first three days of unemployment or sickness, will the hon. Gentleman and his party back that action? No, they certainly will not.
  Mr. Curran Mr. Curran rose—
  Mr. Sillars: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Member's own speech lasted 35 minutes and I have only a few minutes left. The hon. Gentleman talked about the British trade unions exercising their power in times of shortage of labour. He knows that the Government would be the first to stop them doing so. Indeed, they tried to stop the miners exercising their powerful position in the energy market late last year.
  I come to what the Secretary of State said about redundancy being an element which he took into calculation. It is sad to see a Measure, which was brought in to ease the way for ordinary people in terms of technology, now being used to substantiate a Bill which erodes some of the rights which they have built up over a number of years. I hope that the Government will abandon this platform of their social security policy.
  The Secretary of State said that he found that at times people were reluctant

  141
  to go back to their work, the impression being that they sometimes do not go back to work when they are really fit to do so. If this is the case, then it is high time that the Secretary of State examined the medical profession because such men are said to be unfit for employment because of sickness or injury by means of certificates issued by general practitioners. If a fiddle is going on and if there is looseness in administration, then it is not to the workpeople that the Secretary of State should turn, but to his friends in the British Medical Association and elsewhere.
  Dr. Glyn Dr. Glyn rose—
  Mr. Sillars: No, I will not give way. The Secretary of State also said that the National Insurance Fund was absolutely watertight. That is not true. Even the Secretary of State must understand that this fund is not isolated in every respect from other areas of Government income and expenditure.
  The Secretary of State mentioned his proposal to cut the benefit of workers on short-time working. He told us that his reason for introducing this Measure was to remove the temptation from an employer to use the National Insurance Fund to offload his employees during a difficult period for his company. I cannot think of any employer in my experience who has offloaded employees on to the National Insurance Fund saying, "I am transferring you lads temporarily up the road. Come back next week, when we shall be out of our mutual difficulties." Even if that happens, it is no excuse for taking it out on workers. The logical method is to deal with offending employers by taking a levy off them individually or collectively.
  There are very difficult days ahead for the country and for the Government. No matter how much power the Government have in the Ministries in Whitehall, above all they need the co-operation of working-class people. They will not proceed an inch along the way that they want to go or in any other direction without the co-operation and good will of ordinary working people. The Bill is another of the Measures which have been introduced since 18th June declaring war on the interests of ordinary working people. The Government must understand that, if they continue to provoke resentment among
  142
  working people, there will be no co-operation from those people.
  It may be that the Labour Party lost the last election because of apathy among our supporters. Many of us on the left of the Labour Party have been concerned for years about how we can re-stir the old passions among working-class people and stimulate their desire for more power and a better way of life. To some extent we have failed. Where we have failed, the Government have succeeded. We may have lost in 1970 because of the apathy of our supporters. We shall win next time because the wrath of the people will be properly directed against the Conservative Government.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: It has become clear in the debate that there are deep differences in attitudes between the two sides of the House. In spite of the intentional and rather professional light relief of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) and the unintentional light relief of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who always makes his own peculiar contributions to debates of this kind, strong feelings have been expressed, especially by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who have themselves experienced unemployment and known utter dependence on the State system in times of unemployment and sickness.
  We on this side of the House reject the Bill, first, because of the consideration that must be given to a Bill of this kind in a broader context. The House recognises that, during the post-war period, the bitter class antagonisms and resentments which scarred British society in the earlier part of the century have faded under the impact of increasing affluence, the virtual disappearance of the worst extremes of poverty, and the provisions of the Welfare State.
  The lessening of the sense of social divisions in this country during this period has been partial; but large areas of poverty and relative deprivation, as measured by any yardstick appropriate to modern conditions, remain. Despite this partial progress there was no need for pessimism for the rest of the 1970s and beyond. The problems were not of such scale and magnitude that they

  143
  could not have been overcome in a wealthy society such as ours.
  Last June the Conservative Government were elected. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said that the Government were turning the clock backwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out that the middle way, as envisaged by Mr. Harold Macmillan, was dead. So within less than a year the Government have begun to revive old antagonisms and to exacerbate the sense and reality of social division in this country. Our first complaint against the Bill is that its major aspects continue this extremely undesirable and unhealthy process.
  The Bill has been introduced without consultation with the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which consists of experts in social security. It has been introduced without any form of consultation with the Trades Union Congress. The Bill panders to the worst instincts within the Conservative Party.
  I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) earlier this afternoon. It was quite clear that he thought that the Secretary of State and the Cabinet had gone only part of the way towards what he regarded as a satisfactory solution. Indeed, the Secretary of State in his introductory speech made it clear that the Bill was not necessarily the last word on the subject.
  I suppose that one has to look for good in any hon. Member or any man on any subject. Having listened to and, in the previous Government, answered Questions from the hon. Member for South Angus, it always seemed to me that he took the most reactionary view of anyone in the House on the subject of strikers. This afternoon the hon. Gentleman looked into and tried to find a bit of good in himself on this subject. He said that he really did not want to deprive strikers of supplementary benefit altogether; he wanted it to be at the discretion of the local officer dealing with each case on its individual merits.
  I think that I should tell him—
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is not here.
  Mr. O'Malley: —that this would put the people who administer the system locally into an impossible position. They would be placed under an intolerable strain and given an impossible job to do.
  For example, if there were a strike in an engineering or a steel works and several thousand people were out, ft would be quite impracticable to suggest that discretion as between one individual and another could properly be exercised by local officials, busy as they are even without the pressures of a major strike on their hands.
  This is a Bill from a Government who apparently expect, and are certainly inciting, continuing industrial warfare with themselves participating as a partisan force. It is interesting to notice the persistent rumours in the Press, which the hon. Member for South Angus in a recent newspaper article confirmed—I suspect that as a Government back bencher he knew what was happening—that so inflammatory did the Government regard the Bill, particularly the provision about strikers, that they held it back until after the postal strike. Of course, it is an open secret in Whitehall that the Bill would have been introduced several weeks ago had it not been for the postal strike.
  The Bill is in line with the general philosophy of the Government—increased means testing, more selectivity, for which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) asked this afternoon, and higher charges for the treatment of and prevention of sickness. At a time when tax concessions are being given for the wealthy—when advertisements in all the newspapers are explaining how one can obtain a tax concession of £4,000 instead of £2,000 for a car—there is to be no concession in respect of the three days' sickness and unemployment benefit for lower-paid workers and people of the kind particularly referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North—those who are living on wages somewhat below the national average. That reflects our general attitude towards the Bill in the broader context of Tory policies and Tory philosophy, which we completely reject.
  I now turn to the major aspects of the Bill which we find highly objectionable and shall want to debate and oppose in detail in Committee. First, in Clause 7,

  145
  the three waiting days' provision is abolished. In a full year that will save the National Insurance Fund £19 million. The Bill is introduced at a time when the unemployment figure is about 814,000—the highest figure since the war. It is being introduced at a time when the Prime Minister and the economic Ministers are refusing to give any estimate of the unemployment figures in the coming winter. Economic commentators in more than one periodical and newspaper are mentioning the possibility of 1 million unemployed. The Bill is being introduced when short-time working is widespread through the whole of the heavy industrial areas.
  The Secretary of State has charmingly and cunningly appealed to the Opposition Front Bench by referring to what happened when the Labour Government were in power. This proposal was put forward by the Labour Government—but it was withdrawn by that Government because of back-bench pressure. There has been precious little sign of backbench pressure on this Secretary of State from the Conservative Party.
  I should point out that when the Labour Government introduced this proposal they were attempting to negotiate with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. They were trying to persuade employers to take the responsibility of paying for the first three days' sickness benefit. Those discussions came to nothing, but the Labour Government tried. There is no indication that the present Government are having any such discussions.
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend probably heard the Minister interrupt me to suggest that the T.U.C. should go for this benefit. We notice that the Minister has not asked the C.B.I. to pay for the three days.
  Mr. O'Malley: The best thing that the Minister can do is to make a public declaration urging the C.B.I. to do this, saying that they will give the T.U.C. full co-operation.
  Mr. Heffer: Or put down an Amendment to that effect.
  Mr. O'Malley: Or put down an Amendment. We should welcome such an Amendment in Committee. All the objection to the abolition of the three days' waiting system would then be
  146
  removed at a stroke, and everybody would be satisfied.
  We are entitled to ask why the proposal is being introduced now. We know that it will save £19 million in a full year, but it is interesting to consider the underlying philosophy and the basic reason for its introduction—because it is not only a question of saving £19 million. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), now in a state of monastic silence as a member of the Government Whips' Office, used to have plenty to say on this subject. In the debate on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, he said:
  "…there is in the country at the moment dissatisfaction with the fact that it is possible for people drawing unemployment benefit or sickness benefit to live as well as, or even better than, they live when they are employed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 24th February, 1970, c. 378.]
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who is present, that we take the view that, when a man is sick, in a decent and fair society, his income should not be drastically reduced. It is at precisely that time that he needs money.
  In that debate, the hon. Member for Garston was worried about workers taking advantage of the system and said that some people thought that, when sickness benefits were introduced or increased, more people went off work. This has not always been so. A few progressive firms have found that, when they have given their workpeople sickness benefit for the first few days unemployment, absenteeism through sickness during those days was reduced.
  But even if it has increased, one of the reasons is that people, if they have a decent sickness benefit, can afford to be off work when they should never be at work at all. Some hon. Members opposite sneered at my hon. Friend the Member for Walton when he spoke about the condition of the building workers. In building and mining in the old days—I grew up in a mining village—people went to work, as they often still do, because they could not afford to be off work. It is right that they should be able to stay off work when they are not fit to attend.
  The Government, when in opposition, opposed such proposals as they are now

  147
  introducing. The noble Lord the present Minister of State for Defence said that they would vote against them. He could see that they might be acceptable if there were "sociological rethinking". Presumably, we now have that rethinking, and what it comes to is the ending of food subsidies, higher prices, public and private sector workers in two different positions, higher fares, higher health charges—
  Mr. Curran: Higher pensions.
  Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Member's point is not relevant. We are talking about the working population, not the retired.
  The Government opposed this in opposition. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, who has the unenviable job of winding up the debate—he often gets the dirty end of the stick in these matters—would explain why he said in the debates on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill that, if such proposals were introduced to knock off the first three waiting days, some people, particularly at the lower end of the income scale, who were genuinely sick, would suffer. Of course they would, and they will suffer under these proposals.
  The hon. Gentleman is at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, who said that these proposals are vicious. They are vicious for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman himself gave as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman. We oppose this Clause for the reasons which he gave, because it will hit the 6 to 8 million people, lower-paid people, because it will affect people living, as far too many people do, in poverty, because it will affect the working mother of a fatherless family—there were 400,000 of them in 1966—because it will hit yet again the development areas, where the number of lower-paid workers is higher than the national average. The Bill will hit people in the building and mining industries where there is higher than average sickness, and absence through sickness, because of the conditions in which people in those industries work. We oppose it because it will affect large and increasing numbers of people in this country who are on short-time work and who, under the existing regulations and law, can benefit if two or more days of unemployment are within six consecutive working days.
  148
  The result of the introduction of this Clause is to create two nations in this aspect of our life. We are told that 60 per cent. of the population are already in sick pay schemes of one kind or another, and so we are going to put into an inferior position the 40 per cent. of our people—largely the lower-paid workers—who have no such schemes.
  We say to the Secretary of State that he should withdraw the Clause. The first thing that he should do before considering introducing such a proposal is to go to the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. If they could achieve a situation in which the employer paid, it would achieve administrative savings.
  The Under-Secretary said previously that we should try. I am now saying that the present Government should try, too. The hon. Member for Garston told us when we considered the superannuation Bill that we would not get agreement with companies and with the C.B.I. because of the high level of taxation and S.E.T. Corporation tax has now been reduced, and so has S.E.T. This is the time to get going. But until there is such an agreement, the Secretary of State should not come to the House with proposals of this kind.
  I turn next to the question of men on strike and the position of those men when they return to work after a strike. Certainly, the Government have been successful in the first quarter of 1971 in having an unprecedented number of days lost through strikes. It does not say much for their industrial relations policy. Certainly the cost to the Supplementary Benefits Commission through strikes is rocketing, and this is directly the result of the industrial policies of the present Government. It has been pointed out that 90 per cent. of all strikes last for less than two weeks and, therefore, contrary to public opinion which feels that at the drop of a hat everybody will go on strike and draw benefit, in 90 per cent. of the cases strikes end before two weeks. Therefore, the men get nothing.
  Between 1967 and 1969 less than 2·5 per cent. of all strikers received supplementary benefit for their families during strikes, and even in the longer ones only 17·7 per cent. of workers on strike for over two weeks received supplementary benefit. The Secretary of State pointed out that the figure had grown from 2·5

  149
  per cent. in 1967 to 1969 to 25 per cent. this year. But one would expect this kind of variation in strike figures. It depends on the type of strike. We have had the Ford Motor strike and the postal workers' strike—and the present Government have a direct responsibility for the postal strike situation.
  The Government are now introducing a 20s. disregard, whereas the previous Labour Government put in statutory form the entitlement of the striker to a disregard of £4·35. I will tell the House why we did it. First of all, under successive Governments, before the present Government came into power, in matters of social security the State acted as a neutral agent in strike situations. We did it as previous Governments had allowed it to happen because we were concerned about the position of the wives and children of men on strike. The present Government have not done it. They have reduced the amount to £1. It inevitably means that the lower-paid, the men on national average earnings and in the range below, are the people who will suffer. Employers will be put in difficulty, because we are told that what has to be taken into account is not advance of earnings but advance of earnings made or offered. If that is not a recipe for industrial argument, I do not know what is.
  What is even worse—and here I should like to know the Inland Revenue's views—tax refunds are to be taken into account whether paid or not paid. If an employer does as the C.B.I. have recommended, and says, "I shall not pay out the tax refund", the matter has to go to the Inland Revenue and there is delay. How will the Supplementary Benefits Commission and its officers get this kind of information in probably several thousands of cases in a short time and deal with it?
  Even worse than the reduction of disregard from over £4 to 20s., which will affect the wives and children of genuine strikers, is the fact that the Government are not willing to follow the advice of the Donovan Commission to amend the grade or class provisions, with the result that innocent parties will be hit by these proposals. One of my hon. Friends spoke of lockouts, and I confess that I had not considered this aspect before. We shall want to consider it in some detail in Committee.
  150
  I turn now to the process of paying to ex-strikers money on loan for themselves and their dependants and then reclaiming it. That means that the ex-striker will be treated worse than the ex-prisoner who has been in prison for a criminal offence. Further, if any private sector organisation—bank, hire-purchase company, loan company, or whatever it might be—tried to exercise such powers in the way in which the Schedule sets them out there would be a major public outcry.
  What happens? The Secretary of State or his Department has to give to the employer private information about the protected earnings, in the sense that they are defined by the Bill. A man might be paying for an illegitimate child—all the details of his private life are immediately available to the employer. The employer is then instructed to deduct, at his discretion, without reference to the employee at all, between one-eighth and one-quarter of the debt owing to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Anyone who knows anything about the situation on the factory floor—and I can envisage it in a large engineering works—knows that if on the Friday pay day some employer deducts money in this way, at his own discretion, there will be major trouble.
  One must ask the Secretary of State whether the employers agreed to the introduction of these proposals. One effect will be that workers whose normal earnings are little above the protected earnings, as defined, will be very reluctant to work overtime, certainly in the 14 weeks in which the order is operative. That will not help the factory which needs overtime to be worked after a strike has ended. It does not provide good industrial relations but a source of continuous irritation.
  Once again, dependants will suffer. This provision brings endless possibilities in regard to people trying to change from one job to another, and we all know the situation in times of low employment when people have tried to dodge their maintenance payments. I understand that in some areas the authorities were still trying in 1948, to collect debts incurred by loans from the National Assistance Board during the General Strike of 1926.

  151
  I believe that the proposals in Schedule 1 are monstrous and that their purpose is to prevent people from applying at all or, if they do apply, to make them crawl for it.
  The effect of this legislation will not be to reduce strikes by depriving the strikers of their standard of living. I find it hard to believe that a Member such as the hon. Member for South Angus could believe that longer strikes are at least partly caused by higher supplementary benefit rates.
  It shows a complete and abysmal ignorance of our industrial relations system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pointed out, the proposals will increase bitterness, and, incidentally—going against all the ideas of the Secretary of State for Employment—they are a positive encouragement to trade unions to pay low strike pay. Why should they pay over £1 when everything they pay over £1 is taken by the Supplementary Benefits Commission?
  Briefly, on the question of industrial misconduct, we believe that the 40 per cent. rate is too high. Second, there is a need to seek new definitions, so that people caught under this section of the legislation should obtain and be able to feel that they are obtaining a fairer deal than they are at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) gave an example of people who, by following their domestic commitments, found themselves cut off from benefit because the national insurance officer, in his constricted terms of reference, had no alternative but to disqualify them. We shall want to look in considerable detail at all these proposals during the Committee stage.
  On the abolition of the local committees, it is interesting that the Beveridge Report talked about the outstanding importance of
  "Decentralisation and close contact with local agencies of all kinds in dealing with the varied needs of insured persons".
  Before we reach the Committee stage, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us why he has done this. If he thinks that they are not doing a useful job at
  152
  present, or only a very limited job, perhaps in Committee we should consider how the rôle of those local committees can be increased and improved.
  We are concerned at the major aspects of the Bill. The lower paid and children will be hurt. One section of the population is to be labelled poor. It is to be means tested and to be treated differently from the rest of the population. The administration of the Bill will place considerable strain on the administration of the Department of Health and Social Security. We believe that strikers are being met with weapons of deterrence by a Government who always regard the striker as wrong. The Bill is the product of an insensitive Government, whose partisanship is for the wealthy while making second-class citizens of the poor. We shall, therefore, vote against the Bill.
  9.38 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): This has been an interesting debate. It has been noteworthy for the differences of view which have been expressed, notably the differences between the views expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) in opening the debate and those expressed in some of the speeches from the back benches on this side of the House. It has also been noteworthy for the parentage of the Bill which has been called in aid.
  We have heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) quoted as the first author of the proposal for waiting days, followed by the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) who put it in her Bill and later withdrew it. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), whose views on these matters we all respect whether we agree with them or not has described, in his usual expressive language, the possibility of supplementary benefit being paid to strikers after they return to work as "a ridiculous anomaly". When one looks at this respectable parentage, some of the rather extravagant language used from the Opposition benches cannot be justified. The other notable feature of the debate has been the speeches from my hon. Friends, all of whom have supported the Bill strongly and with moderation.

  153
  I come to consider some points made on Clause 2, which deals with industrial misconduct and voluntary unemployment. The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin spent some time expressing her misgivings about the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) gave instances concerning teachers in Scotland. The Clause was mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), whom we all welcome back to social security debates, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who expressed the view that there was a close link between the Bill and the unfair dismissal procedure of the Industrial Relations Bill. What has been said on this highly technical matter, and indeed what has been said on all other aspects of the Bill, will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend between now and the later stages of the Bill.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin instanced the example of a man in heavy work who, because he could no longer lift heavy weights, had to leave his job and who might be caught by this provision. It is unlikely that this would be the case. I am advised that when there was medical advice that a man should leave heavy employment it would certainly not amount to misconduct and he would not lose his unemployment benefit.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who asked about the position of single women with dependants, if a single woman who is disqualified for industrial misconduct has dependants, she will not be required to register for work. The reduction which is tied to the requirement to register will not be applied in her case. Therefore, the disqualification in such cases bites on unemployment benefit only; and if the effect of disqualification is to bring the woman below supplementary benefit level she will get supplementary benefit at the normal level.
  My right hon. Friend made three points, and I want to reiterate them, as to why we think that the provision with regard to waiting days is justified in the context of the substantial improvements which we are making in social security benefits in no fewer than three Bills which have either been through the House or which are now before the House. The
  154
  reasons are, first, that this is a retrospective payment; second, it does not help those who are on supplementary benefit at all; third, there is now a widespread practice of sick-pay schemes and redundancy schemes which make provision for a growing number of people.
  This cannot be denied. The other practical point is that to do with the 13-week linking. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—I apologise in that I did not hear the latter's speech—referred to this and in particular to building workers, to those who work outside and are prone to influenza or are troubled by bronchitis during the winter months. This 13-week linking is of substantial help for those who have a few days off sick during the winter months. It means that, having served their waiting days at the beginning of the winter period, this carries them over, broadly, the winter months.
  The present rules give no one benefit during the first three days absence from work. What is being done is to take away under Clause 7 not the protection during those three days but the retrospective payments for them—payments which might be made up to 13 weeks later. Since 1948, when the present provisions were introduced with the start of the national insurance scheme, the background has changed a good deal.
  First, employers have increasingly provided sick pay for employees temporarily incapacitated. It is estimated that sick pay schemes cover well over 50 per cent of employees. Secondly, the Contracts of Employment Act and the Redundancy Payments Act have enlarged considerably the provision made for workers who are unemployed. Third, national insurance benefits have improved and are shortly to be improved again. The March, 1971, equivalent of the £1 6s. single rate of unemployment and sickness benefit operating at the start of the scheme in 1948 was £3·23, whereas the present single rate is £5 and the rate from September, 1971, as proposed in the National Insurance Bill, which the House will be considering next week, will be £6.
  Fourth, since 1966 the flat-rate benefits have been substantially augmented by earnings-related benefits. Finally, savings have gone up and, with them, the ability of people to manage on

  155
  their own resources during short interruptions of earnings. These are substantial reasons why this expenditure of money can now be much better allocated to more immediate and urgent needs.
  Mr. Heffer: Earlier the hon. Gentleman talked about the 13-week link period. Clause 7(1) reads:
  "A person shall not in any event…for the first three days of any period…"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) challenged the Secretary of State during his speech, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed with my hon. Friend. We must know what the position is. Was the right hon. Gentleman wrong, or is the hon. Gentleman wrong? We must have the exact position. There is nothing in the Bill about this.
  Mr. Dean: I am sure that my right hon. Friend expressed what was in the Bill. Let me repeat it so that there is no misunderstanding. The 13-week linking period means that once the first three days of sickness or unemployment have been gone through, if the person concerned then has a short period at work, if he goes back to work and is then unemployed again, the waiting days do not apply to that, as long as no more than 13 weeks elapse between the first period of becoming unemployed or sick and the following period.
  The other main point in the debate dealt with the position with regard to strikers. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) made an effective case for what the Government propose to do. We claim that there is here a misuse of supplementary benefit which the Bill aims to put right. The traditional position for a great many years has been that the striker himself is not entitled to supplementary benefit while he is on strike. This is a situation which has been accepted by all Governments, of all political colours, for a great many years.
  When the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin was speaking, I thought that the logic of her arguments was completely to reverse that traditional position, because she suggested that these men were being penalised. In particular, she mentioned married men. Married men are in the same position in this regard as single men. The hon. Lady suggested
  156
  that one group of taxpayers was being penalised. What we are doing is to build on the traditional position—which has existed and, I thought, was generally accepted—that it was right that we should see that the wives and children of strikers do not suffer but that the strikers themselves were not entitled to support from the taxpayer while they were voluntarily, by their own action, away from their work.
  What is the present position? Let us take, first, the person who has gone back to work. The hon. Lady conceded here that a change was required. Is it fair that not only the family but also the man who has gone back should get a tax-free grant—because that is what it amounts to? The man is back at work. My right hon. Friend quoted figures to show how this problem has grown. The figures for the receipt of supplementary benefit for people who are actually back at work have grown from £4,000 in 1964 to nearly £889,000 in 1970, and in the first four months of this year to a figure of £430,000. I submit that it is not fair to expect the taxpayer to support the person who is back at work and, therefore, has earnings eventually coming to him in conditions of this kind.
  There will however, be protected earnings of supplementary benefits plus £2 in the case of the employee who is receiving supplementary benefit because arrangements are not available by his employer. It will be recovered through the employer. We hope—and, indeed, expect—that these will be, on the whole, fairly rare cases and that the traditional practice of "subs", as they are called, will be restored, assuming that the House accepts the principle of the Bill.
  Where that is not the case, however, and where, owing to hardship, the Supplementary Benefits Commission pays men after they have gone back to work, I put it to the hon. Lady that some of her remarks were, perhaps, a little out of context. We are talking about a period of a fortnight at the very most. We cannot be talking in terms of debts to be repayable of more than £10 on the average. When one takes into account the comparatively small sum, the real prospect which men will have during this period of earning overtime and the reasonable repayable arrangement that the Bill provides, I do not think that

  157
  one can justify the extravagant language which has been used.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can think of many cases in which a man's overtime constitutes more than one-quarter of his wages? Up to one-quarter of his wages at the employer's discretion can be deducted now for the Government's purposes.
  Mr. Dean: I am saying that I do not think that the hon. Lady, in the remarks which she made this afternoon, sufficiently realised that we are talking in terms only of a sum of £10 or probably less. Taking into account the protected earnings which are written into these arrangements, I do not think that the House will accept that there can be any substantial degree of hardship in the repayment involved.
  The second point on which the debate has centred concerns payment during strikes. As my hon. Friends have asked quite clearly, why is it right that there should be a higher disregard for strikers than for anyone else—at the present time £4·35 instead of £1? Surely this amounts to a back-door method of paying the striker himself supplementary benefit. Both sides of the House, in legislation in previous Parliaments, have accepted that that is a thing we have not done and should not do. Surely, equally, it is not fair between strikers either, because it is those with the largest strike pay and the biggest tax refunds who gain most under this arrangement.
  Some hon. Gentlemen tried to suggest that there would be hardship in withdrawing from the strikers this disregard which has grown up over the years, but do the facts substantiate that? I remind the House that rent will be met in full in nearly every case. Supplementary benefit scale rates will provide for the family, ranging from £4.15 for a childless couple to £11.25 for a couple with two children, plus £1 of disregard in the
  case of those who are getting strike pay or income tax refund. I do not believe that the House will seriously accept that difficulties of that kind are grinding the strikers into the dust, or will justify that and other extravagant language used—I accept not from the Front Bench opposite—in some speeches from the back benches opposite.
  My right hon. Friend is entitled to ask the House to support this Bill tonight. My final reason for saying that—and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe put this so well—is that my right hon. Friend has presented to this House during this Session four major social security Bills dealing with cash benefits. The first Bill of the Parliament, the National Insurance Bill, 1970, meant £30 million more expenditure on priority groups—the over-80s, widows between the ages of 40 and 50 and attendance allowance for the disabled. My right hon. Friend has presented the Family Income Supplement Bill with £8 million to deal with family poverty. He has presented the National Insurance Bill to uprate pensions and other benefits and war pensions; £560 million of additional social service expenditure is involved there. Two priority groups, the over-80s and the chronically sick and disabled are having substantial additional help.
  That is £600 million of additional social service expenditure. I think we are entitled in that context to say to the House that if we are to go on, as we are determined to do, spending more where the needs are greatest, we are equally obliged to try to save where national expenditure is of a non-priority nature. It is on that basis that I recommend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 155.

  Division No. 349.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

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

  Alison, Michael (Barkston, Ash)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Astor, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Carlisle, Mark

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boyd-Carpemer, Rt. Hn. John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bray, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Berry, Hn, Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Biffen, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Blaker, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Clegg, Walter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Coombs, Derek

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Redmond, Robert

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Curran, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dean, Paul

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dixon, Piers

  Lane, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Host, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Loveridge, John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Luce, R. N.

  Sharpies, Richard

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

  McCrindle, R. A.

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  McLaren, Martin

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fell, Anthony

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Simeons, Charles

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Macmilan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Soref Harold

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Spence, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maddan, Martin

  Staintton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Clyn, Dr. Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Good hew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tapsell, Peter

  Crant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hall, Miss John (Keighley)

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

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Temple, John M.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Havers, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  van Straubenzee, W, R.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hay, John

  More, Jasper

  Walters, Dennis

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hicks, Robert

  Neave, Airey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hid, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitetaw Rt. Hn. William

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigafe)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Worsley, Marcus

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

  Mr. Tim Forteseue and

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Coleman, Donald

  Foley, Maurice

  Albu, Austen

  Con cannon, J. D.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Allen, Scholefield

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

  Gatpern, Sir Myer

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Golding, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bamett, Joel

  Deakins, Eric

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dempsey, James

  Griffithe, Will (Exchange)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Doig, Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hamling, William

  Booth, Albert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Buchan, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Hattersley, Roy

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Ellis, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Evans, Fred

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Janner, Greville

  160

  161

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

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  John, Brynmor

  Marsden, F.

  Sillars, James

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Mendefson, John

  Small, William

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  MilIan, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Judd, Frank

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Kelley, Richard

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Kerr, Russell

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Murray, Ronald King

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lambie, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Lamond, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Taverne, Dick

  Latham, Arthur

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Lawson, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tinn, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oram, Bert

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orme, Stanley

  Watkins, David

  Leonard, Dick

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Weitzman, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Portland, Norman

  Whitlock, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McBride, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Richard, Ivor

  Woof, Robert

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mackie, John

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caemarvon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roper, John

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ross, Rt. Hn William (Kilmarnock)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MINISTRY OF AVIATION SUPPLY (DISSOLUTION)
10.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Dissolution) Order, 1971, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th April.
In Cmnd. 4641, the Government announced a new organisation for defence procurement and civil aerospace. This involves the dissolution of the temporary Ministry of Aviation Supply and the transfer of its functions to the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. These changes in Departmental responsibilities require an Order which cannot come into effect unless Parliament approves it. If I may, I shall come to the Order later. First, the House may find it helpful if I refer briefly to the proposals as a whole.
Last October, the Government published their White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government, which was generally accepted when the House debated it in November. The Government said then that their aim was to rationalise the whole function of defence procurement and the overlapping aerospace responsibilities on a lasting basis. The term "procurement" embraces research development and production, as well as the placing of contracts. It was clearly recognised at the time that a lot more time and study was required before final decisions could be taken. This area of government has had more than its fair share of transfers of responsibilities, and attempts at reorganisation in recent years. This is not the time or place to apportion blame, but it is widely agreed that a fundamental rethink has been badly needed.
Hence the Government set up the Ministry of Aviation Supply as a temporary arrangement so that this fundamental examination could be undertaken. The Government appointed a project team, with instructions to recommend how best to integrate all defence research and development and procurement under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. It also had to see how best
164
to handle, in the light of this, the Government's relations with the industries concerned and their responsibilities for civil aerospace policy.
Since its establishment, the project team has had an intensive programme of work over a number of months in both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Aviation Supply. It has also included consultations with staff associations. Evidence was received from the principal trade associations and research councils and from firms engaged in defence procurement. A great many of these firms were visited by members of the team. Overseas experience was also taken into account.
The project team, under the leadership of Mr. Derek Rayner, one of the business team brought into the Government by the new Administration last June, are to be congratulated for their work in producing this most valuable report. The Government thought it right that Parliament and the country should have the opportunity of studying the report, and it is therefore published as part of the White Paper in which the Government announced their acceptance of the main recommendations.
I turn now to the main features of the proposed new structure. A Procurement Executive will be established, headed by a chief executive responsible to the Secretary of State for Defence, combining the existing responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence and those of the Ministry of Aviation Supply for the procurement of defence equipment.
The Department of Trade and Industry will assume responsibility for policy towards the aerospace industry and towards civil aerospace research and development end projects. It will call upon the resources of the Procurement Executive for advice and for the execution of civil programmes.
The Procurement Executive will work on behalf of several departments. Apart from its direct responsibility through the chief executive to the Secretary of State for Defence, it will work on a repayment basis on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry and for other Departments on occasion. A Ministerial aerospace board will deal with procurement policy problems arising in this area

165
and will be the authority for the necessary instructions and policy guidance to the Procurement Executive on aerospace questions.
These changes, which the Government have accepted, represent a clear break with the past and a fundamentally new approach to the vital task of the efficient and economical procurement of defence equipment.
It is a new approach for these reasons. For the first time, the whole range of defence procurement activities will be combined in a single organisation. As the report emphasises, procurement is a specialised function. It must have an organisational form which allows it to develop the specialist skills which are needed and to provide its own top and middle managers. A large measure of autonomy in staff management matters is therefore essential. At the same time, it must be fully user-oriented since its purpose is to meet customer needs. The new Executive comes directly under the Secretary of State for Defence and it will be an integral part of the Ministry of Defence.
The second reason for the claim that this is a new approach is that there will be a new emphasis on the clear definition of authority and responsibility of individual managers both at the top and in the line. In the past, problems have often stemmed from the blurring of lines of command and the diffusion of responsibibility and authority for particular tasks. The organisation of the Procurement Executive will thus be based on the principles of line management and accountable management. The systems controllers will report directly to the chief executive and each will be the accounting officer for his own Vote. In addition, a full review will be made of the necessary rationalisation of research and development establishments. The four controllers, responsible respectively for policy, finance, personnel and sales, will report to the chief executive through the Secretary.
The third reason for putting forward the claim that this is a genuinely new approach is that a clear distinction is now being drawn between responsibility for the formulation of policy and the management of approved programmes. This means that policy responsibility for
166
defence equipment requirements continues to lie with the Secretary of State for Defence, advised by the Chiefs of Staff, while policy responsibility for the aerospace industry and for civil aerospace research and development and projects lies with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Within the Procurement Executive responsibility for the execution and management of approved defence and civil development and production programmes will lie with the systems controllers.
The Government agree with the Project Team that the new pattern of Ministerial responsibilities and the new organisational form we are now adopting will do much to remove the weaknesses of the present procurement organisations which successive Governments have recognised but have found particularly intractable. I believe that that will be accepted on both sides of the House.
I now turn to the implemention of this change. This is a very big change which cannot be brought about overnight. The reallocation of Ministerial responsibilities, which is the subject of the Order, is the first step. With this goes the associated transfer of staff, respectively, to the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. Together, these provide the basis for the complex and lengthy task of planning the organisation of the new Procurement Executive, the new methods of managing available resources, and the rationalisation of particular activities.
The House knows that Mr. Derek Rayner has been appointed chief executive designate of the new Procurement Executive. He will be working full time on the detailed planning of the new organisation. By 1st October, 1971, all the principal officers of the new Procurement Executive will have taken up their posts on a full-time basis. The preparatory stages will then be completed in time for the new Procurement Executive to become fully operational on 1st April, 1972, when the new voting and accounting procedures will also come into play. The Government foresaw that this amount of time would be needed when they announced, in October, 1970, their objective of introducing the new arrangements by 1st April 1972.
In the meantime, the staff of the Ministry of Defence, together with the

167
staff transferred to it from the Ministry of Aviation Supply, will carry out their responsibilities broadly on the existing basis, but within the framework of the new pattern of Ministerial responsibilities which the Order sets out.
As Members will see, the Order makes provision for dealing with the existing responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation Supply. Under the new arrangements the Secretary of State for Defence will be responsible for all defence procurement functions, including those which were formerly exercised by the Minister of Aviation Supply. Aerospace policy now falls to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
As the White Paper made clear, the functions transferred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry include responsibility for a number of special categories. The first of these is the future of Rolls-Royce, although as the Prime Minister has made clear, the Secretary of State for Defence will retain his personal responsibility for the continuing RB 211 negotiations.
The second is responsibility for the Concorde project. The White Paper draws attention to the exceptional arrangements which have been made for the Concorde management team, which was originally set up to combine policy and project management responsibilities. At this stage of the project, we think that it would be disadvantageous to the project to make a clear separation between policy and project management, as we are doing in other fields.
The Government have decided exceptionally to transfer the whole of the staff of the Concorde management team to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The specialist supporting staffs, however, who are not part of the Concorde project organisation, will remain as part of the Procurement Executive under the Secretary of State for Defence.
The non-defence space policy and financial responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation Supply now become the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. These include responsibility for European space programmes and for the United Kingdom space technology programme. The Procurement Executive will continue to have technical and managerial responsibility
168
for space research development and procurement. The Ministerial aerospace board will co-ordinate, as necessary, space procurement activities between user Departments and the Procurement Executive.
I hope that in this brief introduction I have covered the broad aims of the White Paper and the rather complex detail of the changes in managerial responsibility and executive authority. With the leave of the House, towards the end of our discussion, if Members have put further questions to which they would like a reply I shall attempt to answer them, if I can catch the eye of the Chair.
The Government's proposals represent a major departure from the existing approach to defence procurement. That is generally recognised. Results cannot be expected overnight, but the Government are confident that an organisation is now, at least, being formed which will be better equipped to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. The order before the House deals with the changes in Ministerial responsibilities which are the essential first step in bringing the new organisation into being, and I commend them to the House.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: First, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Order, on a number of grounds. For a long time the machinery of Government was regarded as being very private to the Prime Minister of the day. It has become increasingly evident that the machinery that we have for carrying out our policy can be as important as the policy itself. That is a point of view that the Parliamentary Secretary has made very much his own.
I therefore want to add to my welcome to the debate a particular welcome for the hon. Gentleman's contribution to a discussion of the machinery of Government which should have been more fully discussed in the past than it has been. Also, we have a full report before the House, and that gives us an opportunity of discussing its recommendations in the light of more knowledge than has sometimes been the case with changes in departmental structure in the past.
I want to probe a little, rather than give a judgment, and I want to probe in areas which the Minister, understandably, did

169
not deal with in his speech. A big decision has been taken by the decision announced in Parliament and embodied in the Order. Although the Minister understandably stressed its advantages, he skated over the wide separation policy opened up at the moment he brought together defence procurement arrangements which have dominated the thinking of the Government in bringing this idea forward.
One cannot in this area co-ordinate everything. What has been sacrificed by this proposal is co-ordination in other areas. I do not say this in a negative spirit but I think that, before the House passes the Order, it should realise the price which it will have to pay for something which is, candidly, a defence-oriented scheme. This is something designed to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Defence, and no one else.
In dealing with this whole area of military procurement on the aerospace side, we are dealing with immensely valuable resources of highly qualified scientists and engineers. We are dealing with Farnborough and Malvern; in the atomic energy field, we are dealing, at Aldermaston, with some of the most highly qualified scientists and engineers in the country. The objectives governing their work, the method of funding it, the environment in which they work and their accountability to Parliament and the public, as well as to their customers, are of considerable importance if we are to make sense of these difficult decisions.
The Minister concentrated almost exclusively on the defence interest. There is no doubt that there is a strong defence interest, and that the defence people have not been altogether easy about the exclusion from the area of their direct responsibility of the work which used to be done by the Ministry of Supply, then the Ministry of Aviation, then the Ministry of Technology and then the Ministry of Aviation Supply, and which now is to be undertaken, under the Secretary of State's responsibility, in the Procurement Executive.
But there is another area of tremendous importance, to which the Minister devoted little attention; that is the whole question of industrial sponsorship and how far one can and should separate the expertise in these enormous industries, which include most advanced industries
170
in the country—namely, those dealing with aviation and electronics, both of which are growing very rapidly—from the Department of Trade and Industry. The third interest, which is of tremendous importance, is the co-ordination of research policy The fourth is the problem of space policy.
I should like to go back very briefly to the innovation made in 1964 when the last Government came to power, which left the Ministry of Aviation separate in the first instance, but began bringing industrial sponsorship and research planning into one Department, by bringing the D.S.I.R., the A.E.A. and N.R.D.C., with a number of qualified scientists, under a Minister, the Minister of Technology as he then was, who gradually extended his industrial sponsorship responsibilities. Just as the Minister tonight felt pleased that he was bringing together defence procurement, we then felt pleased—rightly so, I think—that we were bringing research together with industrial policy.
It was an essential part of our thinking, and certainly merits cool consideration by the House late at night when it has a little time to spare, that one cannot separate the technological content of industrial sponsorship from the old idea of the sponsorship itself. When, in 1967, the Ministry of Aviation was divided up and the civil side went to the Board of Trade, which was quite logical, of course, all the research establishments came in to go beside the D.S.I.R. establishments into a Ministry with growing industrial responsibilities.
The result was that, for the first time it was an important innovation—one had the opportunity of a sponsorship of the whole engineering industry being brought together under one Minister. All projects were being looked at side by side, instead of having the Ministry of Aviation, which used to fund projects on a basis best known to itself, and support for other industries through the D.S.I.R., operated on different criteria—support for the computer industry or for shipbuilding or the aircraft industry—could be considered on the same criteria under a single Department.
This was a positive advantage for the civil economy. This is what the Japanese did through M.I.T.I., and what the

171
French did when they adopted a Department of Scientific and Industrial Research based upon M.I.T.I. This is what the Department of Commerce in the United States would like to do. The trouble with the Minister's proposals is that he still speaks as if the defence interest in advanced technology should necessarily predominate over the civil interest.
The other thing was that we got the linkage of all research and development brought under industrial sponsorship. But there is another aspect. Just as Government in the past has funded advanced technology in the defence field, so similarly most of the advanced technology which later filters through into industry comes from defence spending. This is the so-called spin-off argument. In aircraft and electronics, something begins in defence and moves into the industrial field later. The defence people are the worst people to be custodians of advanced technology because they always want to keep the Official Secrets Act wrapped around advanced technology as long as they can. I had many complaints from British industry that we were much more restrictive in sitting on advanced technology, which incidentally the taxpayer had paid for, whereas in the United States advanced technology passed out more rapidly and was applied in civil industry.
The security aspect of this matter—I mean the sort of bureaucratic idea that one must keep everything secret for as long as possible—if it is allowed to extend in the way in which it did over the area of defence research, which had been in the Ministry of Technology for some time, will be a great pity. I pursued a deliberate policy, which was not very popular with some people, of trying to let research on the aerospace side grow extra-murally, and to hold as tight as I could to intra-mural research. This was a deliberate departmental policy. It meant that one had to get it outside into industry where it could fertilise with industry.
When I studied the figures of the Ministry of Defence research establishments against my own, after the process of separation had occurred, I found that the old Ministry of Defence establishments had grown intra-murally whereas we had tried to put our research into
172
industry. I have nothing against intramural research. But I say to the Minister that if he had looked at this not just as a defence problem but from the point of view of getting research into industry, he would have been much more sensitive to this problem of empire building.
Finally—and this really needs to be discussed at Prime Ministerial level—by taking it to Aldermaston, the Government are doing something which, to the best of my knowledge, no other Government have done, of putting atomic weapons solely under a defence Minister. In the United States the Atomic Energy Commission is not under Pentagon control. In France there is a similar situa tion. The argument as to where Aldermaston goes is much more than a matter of Ministerial tidiness. It is a matter of high policy. Although I cannot claim to have exercised on military matters, in respect of my colleague the Secretary of State for Defence, any effective influence on nuclear policy, it was regarded as a kind of security that there should be two Ministers, one of whom was a civil Minister, in charge of atomic energy. I regard this as a subject worth raising when we are asked to pass the Order.
Having said that, it is true that before the General Election the Ministry of Defence became very keen to get all this back again. The Ministry began to apply a lot of private pressures, which the incoming Government no doubt felt hit them. at a moment when they wanted to look at the machinery of government again. The new plan introduced procurement officers, which was interesting, and I do not criticise it. The question of its accountability and how it will work is a matter on which we shall have to wait and see. But I am afraid that there are certain aspects of the scheme which really need to be looked at most carefully. One is the fear that the intramural—extra-mural balance will go wrong. Secondly, military security will be used in such a way as to prevent the spin-off of technology into the civil field. Also I wait, as I expect the whole House does, to see how the Government intend to handle the other research establishments which are the subject of a Green Paper which I introduced in the last Government. It was certainly in my mind that if the B.R.D.C. proposal had worked

173
and we had had an opportunity to bring in an executive to take it over, it would in time have moved in to cover the growing civil side with the old Ministry of Aviation establishments at Farnborough and Malvern.
Now the majority of the aerospace and electronics industry is civil and not Defence at all. It is a product, first, of the fact that we live in a relatively peaceful world and, secondly, of the fact that electronics and aerospace are growing anyway. So we are in effect handing over the two biggest growth industries, in the civil sense, to a Defence executive, and that has difficulties.
Concorde proves the point. Concorde is not the exception to the rule, but proves that where one has a big civil project and a combined policy and managerial responsibility, including some technical back-up, one must have it in Trade and Industry. So that Concorde, far from being the exception presented as something that has occurred in the past and has to be kept on, is what one must have when one tackles these problems.
Leaving aside the personal responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence for Rolls-Royce negotiations, again Rolls-Royce has to be Trade and Industry policywise because of its business on the civil side, and its military side will not be predominant as in the past. So the balance of influence between Defence and Trade and Industry will determine whether we go back to the old days when defence technology was justified on defence grounds or was not done at all, or go forward, with the Government adopting, as has been done in Japan, a positive rôle in promoting advanced technology.
The Aerospace Board is a matter of legalising the Aerospace Committee. We had an Aerospace Committee and it brought together different interests, and now the Aerospace Board is created. The Ministry of Defence wants to use its advanced technology, and Trade and Industry is interested in who supplies the hardware. It is like having a Ministry of Land dealing with everything happening on land and a Ministry of Sea to deal with everything there.
I hope that in working out the scheme the Minister will take account of the points that have been made, because a
174
lot of experience has been developed on both sides by successive Governments in working this, and I am not persuaded that the policy represented in the Order is as right as the Minister may at this moment think.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. Robert Adley: The point about the defence bias in the Order had also occurred to me and to a number of other people. It is a cause for a certain amount of worry in that my special interest in Concorde makes me wonder whether we will have the enthusiasm for what is a commercial aircraft when there is a possibility of a defence aura surrounding it. On the other hand, I suppose that we like to think of a military version of Concorde.
As I see it, we previously had one person speaking for the aviation industry as a whole, and now we have two. I must ask my hon. Friend whether he can make sure that the person who speaks for the non-military or civil side of aviation stands up for the industry. Those of us with interest in aviation have to rely on the Minister or the Secretary of State to represent the interests not only of our constituents who are involved in building aircraft but of those of us who are in any way concerned with the future of British aviation. We look to the Minister hopefully as a man who will support the facts of British aviation—and I refer particularly to Concorde—and who will refute the fabrications. The refutation of fabrications is one of the most important aspects of the Minister of State's functions. On pollution, noise and commercial success a great deal of speaking up for Concorde needs to be done, and there is much to say.
This is a short debate. I have today had some answers to Questions which I can only regard as thoroughly encouraging for Concorde's future. First, on the supersonic front, the Minister of State for Defence has made clear that there is nothing new in supersonic flight, which has been taking place in this country since the mid-1950's. I trust that when the Minister is faced with accusations that supersonic flight is new and technologically dangerous, he will not fail to dispute them. There is nothing new in this aspect of flight.
On pollution, we look to the Minister to stand up for the facts. The fact was

175
given to me in a Written Answer that aviation pollution accounts for 0·1 per cent. of industrial and domestic pollution in this country. I ask my hon. Friend once again to ensure that we have a powerful voice at court to stand up for the facts.
The costs of Concorde are frequently exaggerated. Over the last 10 years the cost range turns out to be 0·02 per cent. to a maximum of 10·1 per cent., expressing Concorde's costs as a proportion of our total expenditure on aviation.
The Secretary of State's final and vital task is to stand up for Concorde on the marketing side. We are moving into the phase of Concorde's life in which we have proved that she works and we now have to prove that she can be sold. Concorde's greatest asset will be her speed. The history of developments in aviation shows that speed is the commodity that sells. The Secretary of State will have to be the super-salesman for Concorde. Whatever takes place as a result of the Order, I hope that we can look forward to an enthusiastic champion of Concorde.
Within 18 months of pure jets first flying over the North Atlantic—the Boeing 707—propeller-driven aircraft were no longer able to sell seats on the non-stop routes across the Atlantic. With her 135 per cent. increased speed, Concorde will offer to the customer a major marketing feature which the Secretary of State will be glad that many of us, from time to time, did not forget.
Finally, on noise, the enemies of Concorde—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the distinction between selling what the House realises is his aircraft and the Order before the House.
Mr. Adley: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 4(1) states that anything in this Order which is
"… in process of being done … may be continued by … the Secretary of State …"
I want to ensure not only that it "may be" but that it is continued, and continued with the enthusiasm which my hon. Friend has been showing. That is the objective of my intervention. The Secretary of State has a vital part to play in Concorde's future. I seek assurance that
176
the enthusiasm which we have seen from the Minister of Aviation Supply until now will still be in evidence from the Secretary of State.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. William Rodgers: I wish there was to be a vote against the Order, not for any party reason but on a cross-bench basis. There is nothing in the report which lies behind the Order which has any sense or feeling for Parliament, its function, or the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. There was nothing in the Minister's speech which suggested that government was concerned with anything except the management of a large company. Government and a Department are very different both from I.C.I. and from a military command.
I am against the Order for two reasons. First, as a matter of principle I am not convinced that larger and conglomerate Departments are in the best interests of government. They have not yet proved themselves. On the contrary, there is evidence that they are not successful and that Ministers cannot command them as is necessary. Second, I am against the abolition of the Ministry of Aviation Supply, because there is no evidence that its abolition is related to or will solve the real problems of aviation either on the supply or on the operating side.
On 16th June, 1966, the then Prime Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson)—said that the Ministry of Aviation should be abolished and explained his reason as the need to separate the supply from the operating side. I thought then that it was a mistake. My view was not changed by the debates we had subsequently. Too often the emphasis was on management and not necessarily on those concerned with management and too seldom on the whole question of a reasonable Ministerial structure to ensure continued responsibility in the House.
In the debate on 1st February, 1967, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said this:
"Let us be honest and above party politics in this and admit that we have not in the past managed these affairs particularly well …"
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the failure being
"rooted in the inappropriateness of the Whitehall system itself".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 436.]

177
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) referred tonight to the extent to which the whole question of organisation of government had become a matter for the House and not simply one for Prime Ministers. Although it has become a matter for the House, we have become mesmerised by it and we are in danger of creating a situation where the House has less and less control of a larger and more dangerous machine.
It is not yet proved that bigger is best in government. First, there is the question of political control over a Department. Can a Minister sufficiently dominate it that he is responsible for the main decisions and is wholly aware of what is going on inside the Department? Second, there is the question of Ministerial responsibility to the House, whether the Minister is sufficiently aware of what is going on and sufficently mature in his judgment and has time to read his papers and then time to defend in the House the decisions of his Department and put up a convincing performance.
I do not believe that there can be Ministerial supermen who can be the managers of large conglomerate Departments as they might be managers of I.C.I. or at the head of a military command and at the same time spend sufficient time in this place both to justify their actions and to have a proper political feel for what they are doing. Someone or something is bound to be neglected.
It has been argued, particularly by this Government, that a successful Minister must delegate. A successful head of a conglomerate Department can delegate, in part to his officials, but in the main to his junior Ministers. A junior Minister remains a junior Minister and cannot answer in the House for the decisions which are taken by his Department and cannot in the last resort satisfy the House and, if necessary, resign because of a decision he has made.
Until this House changes its present and long-standing doctrine of Ministerial responsibility there can be no change in this respect. When on 3rd November last we debated the organsation of government I asked a specific question of the Leader of the House and he confirmed that there could be no derogation of powers from a Secretary of State at the
178
head of a large conglomerate Department simply because, for reasons of internal management or for the business of this House, a junior Minister, whatever his name and whatever his salary, was given special responsibilities. Everyone who has served in Government is aware that it is not only or always, or necessarily often, that the largest matters within a Department cause the greatest difficulties in this House.
I remember two matters when I was in government, one in the Foreign Office concerning the Saxenhausen case and another in the Board of Trade concerning the Duccio case, which were not large and did not consume a great deal of departmental time. Yet they were both matters which had to be ultimately handled by the head of those Departments and where the House of Commons made, very properly, demands on the senior Ministers and did not allow them to pass off the responsibility to junior Ministers, had they chosen to do so.
We are also fully aware of the developments of the last week, where the action of a junior Minister in writing a letter has quite properly become a matter of major political importance, the responsibility and deep concern of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Gentleman has my sympathy. He has an impossible task and this Order makes his job even more difficult.
I developed my case against the conventional wisdom of a conglomerate Department in the debate on 3rd November and will not cover the same ground now. No doubt this and successive Governments will continue to play musical chairs with Departments. I certainly do not deny the right of any Prime Minister to organise his Government in what he believes to be the most efficient way. The House should be very sceptical about an Order of this kind, as it should continue to be very sceptical about larger and larger Departments, particularly where the Secretary of State at the head of one of the Departments is not a Member of this House. This development is a threat to the paramountcy of the House of Commons, and in the long run Ministers will be answering less and less and we shall find that, when the House of Commons pursues a matter of proper Ministerial concern, at some point the Minister will pray the weight of work

179
lying upon his Department and the heavy responsibility which he has to bear as an excuse for not appearing here or for answering questions inadequately.
I would have liked to have seen recreated the old Ministry of Civil Aviation. I see no reason why the operating divisions could not have been brought together again. I see no reason why the lessons of business management about which the hon. Gentleman spoke and which are embodied in this report, obscure though it seems to be, could not have fitted into a re-created Ministry of Civil Aviation. We should also ask ourselves tonight: will the new distribution of departmental responsibilities ensure that the Government, this Government or any other, get more effectively on top of problems like Rolls-Royce or Concorde cost escalation? I make no comment at all on the merits of these particular cases, or any other. We should ask ourselves whether, as a result of the passing of this Order, a Government will be more responsive to this House.
There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and certainly, however much I may have had reason to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Aerospace, he has been here to answer and often in difficult circumstances. He has carried out his task with dignity and he has had clear and express responsibilities. His status will be different in future as will be the distribution of responsibilities between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry.
I also ask my colleagues to reflect generally on what a change of this kind means for the whole Ministerial structure: whether it will provide more opportunity for Members of Parliament to assume responsibilities within Departments and learn the business of government and share the burden of government, or whether it will mean in the end that there is less responsibility for some to carry and less opportunity to spread the burden of government, which is increasing all the time.
I am, therefore, against the Order, but I realise that I am swimming against the tide. I prophesy that the Order will do nothing to improve Britain's performance either in the aircraft industry or in civil aviation. I prophesy also that it will not facilitate a proper and effective
180
balance between Government and Parliament. We are not managers here. We are Parliamentarians. Let us not forget it.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I have no wish to make a party point and, therefore, I will pass over the fact that the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) indicates a degree of divergence between himself, speaking now from the back benches, and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), speaking on this occasion from the Front Bench, which deserves some remark in the longer term. I cannot conceal that my sympathies lie more with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees than they do with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, not simply because I find it difficult to accept the concept of the function of a Minister of the Crown as being to try to dominate any sector of industry by assuming the powers of a big spender. I do not believe that that is the right approach. I believe that the somewhat sceptical and searching approach is essentially the voice of backbenchers, and I compliment the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees on voicing it this evening.
That does not mean that I join the hon. Member in opposing the Order. He has posed perfectly respectable questions which we could debate at length. I do not intend to do that now, because the House has not time for it. I simply content myself, first, with saying that although we are here, I suppose, to bury the Ministry of Aviation Supply, it cannot be wholly out of order to praise it and, in particular, to echo the compliments which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees rightly paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) on the way they have come to the House and given an account to hon. Members, on both sides, in very difficult circumstances, of matters which might well have taxed any of us, however experienced and however self-confident we might hold ourselves out to be in any sphere of conduct, whether parliamentary, business or any other. They have had a basinful and they have conducted themselves very honourably. I

181
hope that the House will agree with me in that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Generally, there is no doubt that this change appears to have been welcomed throughout industry. I fear, however, that it cannot be said that it leaves all the problems behind it solved. To take only one example of a problem which will pass as the functions pass, I understand from inquiries which I have made that there is an area of dispute between industry and Government which seems to me to be of some significance concerning defence contracts and the electronic capital equipment industry.
If I may weary the House with some figures, I believe that of 14 electronics companies, of which 10 at least can be classified as major suppliers of defence and aviation electronic equipment, on 31st December last the Ministry of Aviation Supply had £12,700,000 outstanding in payments which should have been made to those companies, of which approximately £2½ million related to deliveries before 31st December, 1967. A situation like this should be examined in some depth. I hope it can be on another occasion. I instance this now merely as showing that the new set-up will be one in which there will still be serious problems which still need to be overcome.
There are two questions, and I would quote briefly from an editorial in this week's Flight International. The opinion expressed there by the editor of this prospective change is, broadly, complimentary, but he says specifically:
"The main doubt concerns civil aerospace. If all buying and R. & D. is going to be managed by the Ministry of Defence, what assurances are there for the civil aircraft industry?"
That is a very good question.
At the end the editor sounds this note of comfort:
"There will now be two Cabinet Ministers with a major interest in the success of British civil and military aviation, each with a budget. They will work together through a new institution, the Ministerial Aerospace Board. This political rehabilitation of aviation in the mind of government is a particularly welcome change."
I hope that that may prove to be so, but I hope I may say without offence to my hon. Friend that I would welcome proof, because, to take one topical example, when we heard the Secretary of
182
State for Trade and Industry say this afternoon that he regarded the prospects of take-off and landing as being in aerospace a technique which is speculative, I was somewhat depressed. I was left wondering what sort of governmental effort we could expect. Many of these techniques, many of us believe, offer the best opportunities for manufacturers. There may be some in this House who would take it as being as right to build the right aeroplanes as it is to build airports in the right places. These are matters about which it is not possible to be dogmatic at this moment, but I hope that there is no question of minds being closed or funds not being applied to areas where very significant developments are in prospect, and where it will not fall to the less powerful of the two partners to deploy Government funds, for I believe it must be the case that the Ministry of Defence will be the pace setter in aerospace now, whereas in many respects it is in the civil aviation techniques that the greatest rewards are to be gained.
On the question of Concorde, I echo very much what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) said. I hope that we can take it as certain that there is to be no weakening in the effort to be put behind Concorde. I hope very much that the necessary weight of money will be there, if it is a question of developing a quiet engine. If my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, I can promise him a certain amount of quiet persuasion to ensure that this is not forgotten, and I dare say that hon. Members opposite may take the same view. There is, in predicting the pace of development of an aircraft, the danger that the amount of money we are prepared to spend on defence itself will be the subject of political pressures which are not necessarily particularly appropriate to the expenditure of itself. There is a danger that we shall be driven into economies which are more false than they would be in other areas.
I do not wish to say more than that, but I simply say, finally, that we all, I think, in this House will reasonably hope that this change will be a change for the better; but, I hope without offence to my hon. Friend, I would say that we shall be most willing to judge it by the results which it achieves.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In shorthand language, because we have a time limit, I welcome a good deal of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4641, first the fully executive responsibility that will be given to project managers. This is perhaps overdue, although it has been well done already with Nimrod. I welcome the concept of the procurement career. However, are the controllers to be members of the Services, as members, for instance, of the Air Board, or members of the Scientific Civil Service? Whoever gets the bulk of the controllers, the others will be disappointed, and there is a career problem here.
I welcome paragraph 18, the buildup of a partnership between the establishments and industry. It is probably a good thing that design work should be done by outsiders and not intramurally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said.
I welcome paragraph 20 and the recognition that development must be taken to the first prototype or model stage. Even if it means 15 to 20 per cent. on the final total expenditure, this seems realistic and sensible. I welcome the reflections in paragraph 22 that efficiency consists not merely of the avoidance of mistakes, and that the Public Accounts Committee should be interested in total efficiency rather than niggling little points. There is no evidence from industry of examples of the P.A.C. niggling unnecessarily, but it is a thought that is common in industry. I think the reference in paragraph 25 to break clauses is right. On paragraph 95, "In-service support", we must look at the total package, including the cost of spares. All that is welcome.
I come now to certain reservations. Paragraphs 13 and 15 raise the knotty and awkward problem of the mechanism of shrinkage. Paragraph 15 states that the organisation should be capable of reviewing and reducing itself. There is nothing in the White Paper to demonstrate how this can be done. There is no realistic solution as to how the mechanism of shrinkage is actually to take place. Anyone who knows the defence research establishments knows how difficult this is. People have pension rights, homes and obligations to schools, and the White Paper does not get to grips with this problem.
184
From the charts on pages 28 and 38 it seems that there are still an awful lot of chaps remaining in this structure. Will the procurement agency staff be bigger or smaller? It looks smaller, but there seems to be an enormous staff. What about the accountability of line management? The concept of line management being themselves accountable should not go undiscussed. Will four controllers or five controllers be answerable to the P.A.C.?
I have had put to me a problem about the status of a secretary, who is both a staff man and a deputy line man. Friends of mine in industry have pointed out that in practice this can create difficulty.
Paragraph 89 concerns the greater selectivity of objectives. It is easy to talk about this, but Mr. Rayner and his colleagues have skirted round it somewhat lightly. We have all been talking about this for donkey's years and have come to no solution, and I do not see any solution in the White Paper.
On paragraphs 101 to 102, it may well be right that the Weapons Development Committee will cease to exist, but perhaps this is a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) might give his mind to. How is the Treasury to keep its finger on the pulse? How is it to keep in touch if the Weapons Development Committee is abolished before final submissions?
Our Select Committee view was that the Treasury should be brought in at a fairly early stage. It is not immediately obvious from the White Paper that it will be brought in at any earlier stage than hitherto. In relation to paragraph 117 of the White Paper, it would appear to be essential that the Treasury should come in early on any given project since it would be unrealistic to do otherwise.
Finally, I come on to my major worry about the White Paper. There is a very intricate and vital relationship between procurement and defence policy. The rôle of the Navy and the Royal Air Force, if not the Army, is at any rate partially determined by their choice of weapons and choice of vehicles. The point is that unless there is in the Ministry of Defence some clear set-up where issues of what we ought to do about defence policy are debated, then in a short time

185
there will be a real danger that the procurement agency will become the Ministry of Defence; in other words, that the procurement agency will assume the powers of the Ministry of Defence itself.
During the decade of the 1960s, under both Governments, the scientists under Sir Solly—now Lord—Zuckermann, plus some very intelligent serving officers and administrators, urged on and encouraged by Lord Mountbatten, created a sense of debate. That was certainly the impression among many of us. What bothers me is that now, for one reason or another which we need not go into, this debate has withered away.
The present White Paper erodes, in my view—or at least runs the risk of eroding—still further the chance of debate since it obliterates, almost to vanishing point, the responsibilities of the Chief Scientific Adviser and of the Service Chief Scientists. Although I have talked to Professor Bondi about many things, I have not discussed this matter with him, but it seems that his rôle is virtually eroded by this White Paper. The Service Chief Scientists and Professor Bondi no longer have any executive rôle worth mentioning.
If discussion of what we should be doing is damped down—and this has happened both in the Ministry and at Byfleet—and if this kind of debate is a good thing, which I think it is, then one must create a substitute for that debate elsewhere. With the best will in the world, I see no signs of such a substitute in the White Paper. It may be that I shall be proved wrong by the Ministry, but I certainly see no signs of this substitute.
It has also to be said that our defence forecasting is pretty arbitrary Nobody currently is defining the sort of hot war for which we should be preparing. From this point of view I see deep and grave dangers, not only to the House of Commons but to the workings of a rational defence debate about what the nation should be doing. It behoves those who speak for the Government this evening to put at rest the minds of those who think this way, if it is possible to do so.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am sad that this stimulating debate
186
should have to be so short. The speeches have been most penetrating and interesting. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) bewailed the fact that the scheme was over-defence-oriented, yet for his Administration the most major failures were in spectacular fiascos of defence procurement—the TSR 2 and its potential successors. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) attacked conglomerates. Of course the Ministry of Technology and even his own baby, the Ministry of Aviation, are conglomerate Departments.
I will summarise the best parts of the Order. The first is that it shall no longer be a requirement that the research and development costs or the costs of production will have to be recovered, and this is a major advance which should help the marketability and sale of defence products around the globe.
Second, there will be a wider spread of Ministerial responsibility for aviation. This was highlighted in an editorial in Flight. The very fact that a Ministerial aerospace board is to be established, encompassing, even in small degree, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, and realising the full potential across the board of aero-space, is to be welcomed.
Then there are the specific responsibilities. This Administration has already done well in going back to the principle of individual Service Ministers, which I have welcomed. I also welcome the fact that a specific procurement Minister is to be added to the Defence Council.
Third, customer orientation is most important. In the past, sanction had to be granted from the Minister of Technology for even the tiniest modification, even if potentially of great military significance. That one should be able to deal directly with one's customer is a great advance.
Fourth, the suggestion for rewarding specialist skills is admirable. There is a feeling that Ministry of Technology jobs have been backwaters into which officers have been shunted. I am not suggesting that we should move to the Swedish system of an Air Force Board and overspecialisation, but certainly specialist skills of this sort should be recognised more.

187
The reorganisation could perhaps have combined the regulatory and procurement functions of aviation equally well if something like the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation had been re-established. The Secretary of State for the Environment should have an overall planning responsibility for transport in the macro sense. He already has a deciding influence on airfield operations, which are basically civil aviation functions. So there is some doubt here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) talked about the competition on resources which is bound to occur between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. One could envisage competition for these scarce resources between a civil short take-off or vertical take-off project and the M.R.C.A. programme. These are real fears which could well be realised.
Is the Minister for Procurement to have a policy responsibility and not just a responsibility for delivering the goods? Will he be responsible for operational requirements, and not just for seeing that the needs of the Services, as put forward by the Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of State, are met?
Overall, I am pleased. The Order puts aviation back to the place of prominence where it belongs. The regulatory, operational and procurement functions in civil aviation are to come under the same roof, and defence procurement is to be facilitated, but I have some anxieties whether the "think tank" in the Department of Trade and Industry, for all the direct access which it will have to defence research establishments and the like, will have the teeth to ensure that British civil aviation has the place in our economy which it deserves.
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Draft Statutory Instruments are intriguing documents. The longer one looks at them the more interesting questions seem to come out of them.
I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, paragraph 2(1) carefully refers to the Secretary of State—I raise this question because I am trying to discover which goes to which Secretary of State—whereas paragraph 2(2) equally carefully refers to the Secretary of State
188
for Defence. Is there any subtle reasoning behind that distinction?
Secondly, I note that Schedule 7 states:
"In the Science and Technology Act, 1965, there shall be omitted the words ' and the Minister of Technology'".
Surely the transference to the Department of Trade and Industry took place last year. Does this mean that this is closing a gap, an error, in legislation which otherwise had not been done?
They are two small points. However, I believe that draft Statutory Instruments are sometimes meant to be looked at in this kind of way.
Before raising one major point I should like to put two other questions. Regarding Appendix D of the White Paper, who will have responsibility for procurement for Linesman Mediator which was separated in the past between the old Board of Trade and the Ministry of Defence. There are two separate functions which technically come together. What will happen with the new set-up?
Perhaps it should be crystal clear from the documents, but I am not clear how the procurement of civil aircraft is to take place. A great deal is involved in the White Paper and in the Order about the procurement of military aircraft. What machinery will there be? Will it have to be done ultimately through the procurement machinery of the Ministry of Defence?
The Minister carefully spelt out that what was in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper was a temporary measure. The Aviation Group of Mintech became a separate Department; there was special responsibility to the Secretary of State for Defence; then a project team. At that time I wished—there was no political wish involved—that the new Government could wait a while before making changes in the structure of Government. I realise that four or five years is a short time overall and that new Governments wish to move pretty quickly, but I wish that they had waited at that time. Now we have the decision spelt out in Command 4641 and we find ourselves back in Defence swinging back to a Minister of Equipment, or some such title, at the Ministry of Defence which this Government ended on 18th June last year. It may be that the Government have learned. For a long time when in Government I thought about the matter

189
with my colleagues. In the beginning I felt very strong against the Minister for Equipment set-up, on which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) touched, but in the end I saw that it was inevitable and correct.
The new Government came in and it went. Now it is back. What will be the relationship of the Minister of State for Defence, who will be an important and powerful man, with the junior Ministers, the Service Ministers, at the Ministry of Defence? Who will be responsible to the Naval dockyards, to the Army supply depots, and to the R.A.F. M. Us. and so on? Are they to be in the hands of the junior Ministers? That is the important point. It is taken that there is to be yet again a change of departmental organisation at the Ministry of Defence, other than that expressed in the White Paper, resulting from this Statutory Instrument.
To whom is the Air Member for Supply or the Air Member for Organisation—or his counterpart in the other Services—to be responsible. Will he have a responsibility to the Minister of State? Will the Minister of State sit on each of the individual boards—or will it all be done, in the procurement sense, through the Defence Council?
I am sad that we have to debate this matter at this hour, because it is far more important than many matters which receive far more time and the full glare of publicity. The new Minister of State will be a very powerful person, because of his job. Defence procurement is big business. Large firms depend upon the orders that they will get from the Ministry of Defence.
I could not understand what the reflection of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) meant, because it is inevitable that it should be this way. It will never be broken up into little pieces, as it may have been many years ago, with small orders going to individual defence firms. The whole procurement set-up will change the nature of joint stock companies who supply the Ministry of Defence. This is not the time to go into the Rolls-Royce business again, but what was involved there was that stresses and strains of a technical and organisational nature were put on that company for which the joint stock sort of organisation was never designed.
190
The Minister of State will be there with these large orders in a variety of areas—even down to clothing companies. It will require a great deal of wisdom. What will matter far more than that in the long run is the question of what will be the philosophy of this new Ministry of Defence Department with regard, for example, to launching aid. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South-East (Mr. Benn) raised the question of the vast sums of money provided in the first instance to individual firms.
The hon. Member for Woking raised a point that struck a chord with me, about the type of aircraft that the Ministry of Defence will order. Civil aviation looks in one direction and defence in another. I know from my experience in office that the Service idea—which is quite understandable—is in terms of getting an aircraft pretty quickly. It has to perform certain functions. It will be different from the sort of rôle required by civil aviation.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of the rôle of the Treasury in all this. Will there be any changes in the method of contracting? In my time in the House separate sagas of problems have arisen out of contracts given to individual firms. We have not yet reached the end of that story in terms of organisation.
I thought that the story related on page 19 of the White Paper—the quotation from Gaius Petronius—was delightful. Perhaps it struck a rather too flippant note in this managerial document, but it went home with many a serving man.
I should have preferred the White Paper to have ended with the words of Cromwell in a letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland a good many years after, in 1650:
"I beseech you, Gentlemen, by the bowels of Christ, bethink you that you may be mistaken."
We shall come back to this subject, because we have not found the answer in this White Paper.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. David Howell: With the leave of the House, I shall try in the remaining time to answer the many interesting questions which have been raised. I shall

191
not succeed in dealing with them all. The answers to some lie in the future: a number of the valuable points which have been made can be answered only with the assertion that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for his kind words about me. The right hon. Gentleman's experience and enthusiasm are very great, and I am obliged to him for his constructive and probing questions.
Before dealing with other specific points, I move straight away to the right hon. Gentleman's central and first point. He made some play with the proposition that the Government's intention was to subsume the whole business of procurement in Government inside the limits and under the influence of the military and defence. It is true that by far the biggest client of the new Procurement Executive will be the Ministry of Defence. For that reason, it makes sense to combine the two and make the Executive an integral part of the Ministry of Defence. But to imply that this approach means that the whole subject is lost inside defence considerations is to miss the major point of the innovation that we are making.
The Procurement Executive is designed to meet the needs of Government policy across the whole range. That has to be said because it is the central innovation and the reason why this is a new approach and not another attempt to meet the eternal problem in a formal way.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. We are considering how this can be brought into the new system by April of next year. Again, if the changes are made, the establishment will not be subsumed within a Department so much as brought into the Procurement Executive.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the arrangements made for Concorde will not be an exception but the rule. I repeat that I believe that it is an exception, and that the case for it is an absolutely clear one. This is a far-advanced project, with clearly established responsibilities within a project team. If my hon Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) will forgive me, I shall not go into the merits of this project one way or the other, but it is singled out because
192
it is a far-advanced project, and in this area an exception needs to be made.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to the question of sponsorship and the effect on industry. Obviously this is a late hour at which to raise matters of fundamental dispute between this Government and our predecessors, but we have a question mark in our minds about the kind of sponsorship that the previous Administration practised. We believe that, in the main, the best sponsorship is by good buying and not through endless subsidies. Once the subsidy principle takes hold, firms begin to lean and need more support. One finds, for instance, the Government doing too much in-house research.
We believe that further steps should be taken and that this approach through good buying and through a Procurement Executive will enable industry to move away from a weak R. & D. basis in some areas to a stronger one. The operations of the Procurement Executive will enable this to happen, and some of the excessive in-house research will be got back into industry, where we believe that it belongs. This is the point that I make about the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, and it is one that needs to be repeated because it is central to all our thinking and ideas.
I now turn to some specific points which were made in various interventions. I am not taking the various points in the order in which they were made, because the sequence fits in more simply if I take different contributions in groupings. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the specific question of controlerate. The names of the first systems controllers have already been mentioned. The other newly appointed controllers—policy, finance and so on —will be civil servants.
The hon. Gentleman asked—and it is an absolutely fair question—whether new bodies reduce themselves and whether there will be self-contraction in this case. If the Executive was just a body starting in a completed state and one expressed the hope that it would reduce itself, I would concede that it was a feeble hope; but we are introducing a new structure and we intend to achieve reductions and economies, as the White Paper makes clear. For instance, with the introduction of more in-line management, there will

193
be fewer committees. More responsibility will go out to the supply industries, and it will come as no surprise to many of my hon. Friends, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in particular, that my right hon. and noble Friend and I in my Department will be keeping a beady eye on the question of staff economies and so on.
The hon. Member for West Lothian also expressed worry that somehow policy debate would be suppressed. The one hope and encouragement which emerges from these new ideas is that the opportunity for in-depth policy discussion will be greatly increased. I think he will agree that what one has found in the past in these areas of government is that too many people are involved both in policy and in management, with the result that neither gets done all that well. This has been the difficulty, not in relation to particular people but in relation to the system in which they have been imprisoned. The whole philosophy of drawing apart and identifying policy formulated on the one side and management on the other offers a major opportunity to increase the capability that can be applied to better policy formulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned transport and aviation. This was really covered in the debate last November. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him up that avenue for the moment.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) cast an accurate eye over the Order and noticed two points, one about "the Secretary of State." Those words relate to the Secretary of State for Defence. There is no sinister purpose there. The reference to the Ministry of Technology is not an error. He also asked about the Linesman/ Mediator. That belongs to the Ministry of Defence and D.T.I. jointly.
Finally, there was the theme taken up by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, that the whole proposal of a Procurement Executive is really all wrong and that in some way the authority of the House is being challenged. All I would say is that if this House tries to control everything it will end up by controlling nothing. I believe that many people who
194
are watching our affairs from outside feel that strongly, and urge that we should concentrate on the issues of policy, and, while realising that detail is always involved, we should be clear in our minds what are the important issues which we should survey on behalf of the public.
It is a huge task to reconcile efficiency and democratic control. It is not peculiar to the United Kingdom. It is not peculiar even to the European side of the Atlantic. But in what we are doing tonight and in the changes proposed in this Order we are taking one small step in the right direction.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Dissolution) Order 1971 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th April.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the Economic Situation in Wales and Monmouthshire, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That Mr. John Golding be discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and that Mr. Ronald King Murray be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

TERMINAL PATIENTS (TREATMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
11.40 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the need for an inquiry into the care of terminal patients. The only absolute certainty for us all is that we shall each one day become a terminal patient. We all hope that it will be later rather than

195
sooner, and carefully thrust our heads into the nearest pile of sand and try to think as little as possible about it. The result has been an extravagant and deplorable lack of information concerning the care of dying people.
I have asked a series of questions of Ministers and I have received a series of answers saying that no information is available. For example, it is not known how many people live alone at the time of their death. It is not known how many terminal patients are refused admission to hospital or are discharged when dying. It is not known how much it costs to keep a terminal patient. It is not known how many coroners' inquests are held on people living alone at the time of death. It is not known how long the delays are between people dying and being found because neighbours happen to notice that the milk has not been taken in. It is not known how many terminal patients die alone when suffering from incontinence or double incontinence. It is not known what the needs are, and, therefore, we do not provide for those needs.
Why should there not be any information? It is partially because this is not a subject that makes any of us very happy to talk about partially because those who die have no union to fight for them—or, if they have, it is not in this world. It is partially because they have no votes; when the next election comes, the only certainty is that those who die in the meantime will not be around to cast their votes. It is partially because relatives—and I have letters from dozens of relatives all over the country—do not want, before the death of the patient, to be made more miserable by his plight being brought to public attention, and after the relative is dead all they want is to try to forget a little and live their own lives in peace. It is not a problem for the wealthy, because if people are wealthy they can buy comfort and nursing, and pass their last days in decency and dignity. Even many middle-income people are unwilling to raise the roof over this problem.
Why have an inquiry? It is because without it we cannot assess the need. We would not plan a bus route without knowing how many people lived along it or would use the buses, yet we plan a service for half a million people who die each year without anyone having the
196
slightest idea of the circumstances of their deaths, except that we know that just over half of them manage to die in a hospital.
I must make it quite plain that I am not pressing for hospital accommodation to be available for all dying persons. It is important that as many people as possible should be enabled to die in the comfort and familiar surroundings of their own homes, provided that they can be coped with by their relatives or can look after themselves and can die in dignity.
Why, then, should the Government carry out this investigation? The answer is that the hospital boards are not equipped to do so, nor are the local authorities. They do not have the finances, and there are also certain demarcation difficulties. But the Government have overall control and could take such steps as are appropriate to deal with the situation.
A little information came to me a short time ago by courtesy of the medical officer of health for Leicester, and I am happy to pay tribute to him and to his staff. The information is that in one month in Leicester of 79 who died known to the home nursing service no fewer than 46 were incontinent and 21 doubly incontinent. Eleven received the night nursing service, 11 were with their relatives, and 12 of these unfortunate people were living alone. One can hardly imagine a worse ending to life than to die incontinent, alone, with no one to look after one other than those most devoted ladies of the nursing service, who are overworked and unable to pay the number of visits that they would like or to spend the time that they would wish with their patients.
I was able to raise this matter in the Press, on television and on radio, and I have had hundreds of letters from all over the country, most saying, in effect: "Please don't quote us. It is just that we should like you to know that we are grateful that at last this matter is being raised. Something must be done about it."
This is the tip of one of the most unhappy icebergs that one could imagine. Not surprisingly, these individuals want no publicity. Their complaints arise under two main headings. The first is a lack of physical facilities. Some old people cannot afford to warm their

197
homes. They want small houses, and no one builds little homes for old people. Many live in large houses. Some have homes without inside lavatories. In many cases there is lack of sufficient medical or nursing care. Some hospitals do not admit them when they are dying. Others discharge them home to die. Some hospitals have insufficient space or nurses to cope. I blame not the hospitals but the system which allows this to happen in an otherwise civilised country.
What is being done? The hospitals do their best, but it is not enough. The problem of old people is generally at the bottom of the pile if there are not enough beds. One must have enough for the people whom one can help to live and whom one can cure; it is the old who must go home to die. Once one is over 60, and especially over 65, unless one is an "interesting case" one may have the very greatest difficulty in finding a hospital which is prepared to care for one and let one die in decent comfort.
The domiciliary services do a marvellous job. I went round with the nursing service in Leicester and saw the unhappy cases that they cared for and heard of those whom they have managed to make happy in difficult and sometimes squalid circumstances. All praise to the professional workers. I am not attacking them for a moment. They do valient work with the minimum of resources in most cases. Many home helps are angels. They make it possible for people to live in their own homes. Many also work at weekends and do a tremendous job for which they are poorly paid. Many work amongst the incontinent and the dying in circumstances of great inconvenience. We should be very grateful to them.
The five-days-per-week meals-on-wheels service is run 50 per cent. by volunteers. At least some old people receive a meal and a visit. But some of them do not receive that for five days per week but perhaps only on two or three days. Some old people who are dying alone, ill people who cannot prepare a meal, cannot eat the food brought to them because, perhaps, they have carcinoma of the throat and cannot swallow propertly. These people need suitable food, but there is no one to cook for them. No one knows how many there are. I congratulate and praise those who
198
run the meals-on-wheels service. I thank God for them. But they cannot cover the ground.
There is a criticism of relatives who send the old and dying off to hospital, but there is not the praise that there should be for the hundreds of thousands who are making the utmost sacrifices to keep their loved ones at home and look after them in the most distressing possible circumstances. I have seen some of these people in homes in Leicester. They are wonderfully courageous, nursing their husbands, wives or children, patients who in many cases should certainly be in hospital because the relative cannot cope with the circumstances; but hospital beds are not available. Whether it is a question of the relative's incontinence, of the difficulty of feeding him, or of the delirium which should not be seen by children, it makes life unfair and difficult for far too many people.
Hospitals will no doubt be built. I am sure that the Minister will say that more resources are to be allocated, but that is a long-term matter. Domiciliary care is available now if we could only get the nurses, train them and keep them and if only there were not a wastage of about 40 per cent. of entrants to the nursing service because, apart from poor pay, the service is in many other respects unattractive. If there were the nurses and if there were available the means of caring for dying people in their own homes, we could do much better than we do and without the need for such enormous resources as is sometimes thought.
I have asked the Government if they will promote such an inquiry. In one Written Answer the Minister told me about certain inquiries that are proceeding and about one report in particular which is awaited. With over half a million people dying every year, and in view of the fantastic and disgraceful absence of information, these inquiries, however admirable they may be, are not enough. What is needed is a full-scale and thorough inquiry conducted by the Government. I am not blaming the situation of the dying on those who are presently working in this field. I do not blame the Government. I blame all Administrations and all of us who have connived at sweeping this matter under the carpet for so long.

199
The matter of the dying occasionally comes to the surface in a dramatic form. Recently the Press quoted the cases of two old people dying alone in the London Borough of Barnet. The coroner said this of one of them:
"Maybe it is an indictment of all the social services in this country that a woman of 81, living alone, should be allowed to continue to live and to die in such conditions. It is extraordinary that, with the health authority's statutory power to help people—even against their own will—the powers were not used in this case."
A social worker wrote to me saying this:
"Last week I was asked by a local resident to see if I could help with an old man who was ill. Within five minutes of the request I was at the man's home—a small cottage without hot water, bath or indoor toilet and only a small unguarded electric fire for heating. The man had not been upstairs for years because it was too cold. When I called at the house the old man was on the outside toilet in the yard on a bitterly cold day. After some ten minutes of waiting I decided I had better investigate and I found that the man was too ill to get himself off the toilet seat. After helping him back into the house and trying to make him comfortable I telephoned to a doctor who had seen the man that morning. She said that she had thought that maybe she should have tried to get him into hospital that day, but she would try to do so now. During the next ten minutes the man died."
I can quote this case because it was reported in the Press.
The most famous and most unhappy case of all was that of Lillian Board who went abroad for her treatment because she found none at home which was sufficiently satisfying, and eventually a team of doctors went out to the clinic in Germany. I quote what the doctors said on their return:
"The fact that so many patients go to the Ringberg Clinic to find something they fail to find at home is really more a reflection on the medical service they leave than a credit to Dr. Issels' particular treatment."
I quote from a Press article:
"Athlete Lillian Board's father put it even more bluntly: 'Dr. Issels takes on the cases that other people have regarded as hopeless and gives them a new chance. In this country they are sent home to die.'"
This is a terrible indictment of our civilisation.
I finally quote from a compassionate article by Dr. Hertzel Creditor which appeared in the journal called Pulse last week, considering the subject of the dying patient. He ended in this way:
200
"It is not enough that the dialogue on death should be emotive, or hesitantly clinical or psychiatric. If, at last, its importance has achieved the notice of the doctor, then concerted observation and investigation is desirable. Is it too much to ask that the Medical Research Council institute an inquiry—there is no shortage of material!—in which observations on death are controlled and precise, and the deductions statistically significant."
I ask whether it is too much that the Government, with all their resources, should conduct a full-scale inquiry into the clinical side of this terrible problem, into the agonising, inhumane, social side of the old, lonely and ill person, living his last days alone, often in squalor, in no way his own fault. I ask that this inquiry be held so that steps can then be taken in the light of full information to remedy this unhappy and agonising situation.
11.56 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The subject of terminal care which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has raised this evening is so far-reaching and so intertwined with every aspect of the provision of the National Health Service and the personal and social services that in a brief debate such as this I can hardly do justice to the range of factors which are bound up with the subject.
Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman has done us all a service by drawing attention to the subject and I am glad to have the opportunity of answering some of the points he has raised both in his speech tonight and by a long series of Parliamentary Questions, to which he referred, which he has tabled over the last few weeks.
I am, especially, particularly grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his courtesy in giving me some advance information about the particular matters he intended to raise and some of the questions he would put. I will try in this reply to concentrate on these matters in particular.
There is a general point I should like to make first of all about terminal care and the way in which it is provided in our social services. A definition might be helpful. One might say that terminal care refers to the management of patients in whom the advent of death is felt to

201
be certain and not too far off, and for whom medical effort has turned away from therapy and has become concentrated on the relief of symptoms and the support of both patient and family. These services are rendered to patients not by specialist staff or, in the main, in specialist units, but, at one time or another, by all those who provide health services—by the general practitioners, by the various agents of the local health authority—and the hon. and learned Gentleman specified some in his constituency—by hospital specialists in many specialties and by nurses and other staff who work with them.
Although the point may seem an obvious one, it is as well to remember that this is the context in which we are discussing the subject tonight. Some of the questions which the hon. and learned Member has raised, particularly those about the collection of statistics, must be answered in the knowledge of the situation as it is; that is to say, in the knowledge that patients about whom we are speaking are patients who are treated by the same people and normally in the same places as the whole range of other patients. Indeed, for many of them the borderline between active therapy and terminal care neither can be nor, indeed, in the interests of all concerned, should be, at all clearly defined.
The hon. and learned Member has mentioned Dr. Issels, and, whatever may be said about the treatment which he provides in his clinic, one thing is clear and that is his refusal to admit defeat. In the eyes of his patients and their relatives, this is perhaps his greatest strength. The hon. and learned Member quoted something about the doctor. Translated into the language of the subject which we are discussing this evening, he perhaps hardly believes at all in the application of terminal care, and there are surely patients for whom it would be very wrong to take any other view even if the spark of hope on which the physician or surgeon is basing his efforts is a very tiny one. This has a bearing on the way in which information can be collected, and I shall return to the point in a moment.
There are many things which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned this evening with which I agree entirely, or at
202
least in a large measure. I do not think that there is anything between us in the importance we attach to the question of terminal care in general. It is an essential part of a civilised community that we should give those for whom the end of life is approaching all the support of which society is capable, so that they can end their days in good and skilled hands and can be sure that, as far as medical care can achieve it, they are kept in what comfort and in what freedom from pain we can manage to provide for them.
The hon. and learned Member has mentioned some specific inquiries which he has made, and has drawn attention to things which he considers to be shortcomings and to a number of individual and particular cases. I hope that he will accept that, here again, there is nothing between us and that my right hon. Friend and I and our Department are as keen as he is, and, indeed, have always done our best, to follow up information about cases where services have apparently fallen short or the standard at which we should be aiming has not been reached, and have taken what steps we can to correct matters where correction is needed. If the hon. and learned Member, who has referred to some of the large sheaf of letters which he has had, wishes me to follow up any case, I assure him that I will be happy to do so if he would like to specify it to me.
I find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member also on the question of research, but there is some qualification to the agreement that I register here with him. Research is surely needed, but I think that the content of some of his Parliamentary Questions over the last few weeks suggests a misunderstanding of the kind of statistical information which it is possible and useful to collect. I have already touched on the point briefly a few moments ago.
I do not think that it would be right, quite apart from the question whether it is possible, to attempt to collect statistics of "terminal patients" as such, whether in hospital or in connection with their admission or discharge. I find myself very much in opposition to the whole idea of labelling patients in this sort of way for record-keeping or statistical purposes, and I would not wish to lead the hon. and learned Member to believe

203
that this is something on which we should be prepared to meet him. But this does not mean that I dispute the need for more information on the matter of terminal care.
As my right hon. Friend told the hon. and learned Member in a Parliamentary Answer on 6th April, my Department is supporting specific, although local, research schemes, and I think that, for the present, this is the right way to proceed. We need the experience of individual inquiries, carried out within a manageable compass, first, to give us information about a situation about which we do not know enough and, secondly, to teach us where and how we might in future carry out wider and more extensive inquiries. I think that this is a much better way of proceeding than to try to launch the national inquiry to which the hon. and learned Member has referred. Indeed, as I hope to show, some of the information which would be most useful can be obtained only in the course of limited local inquiries, because to make the same investigation on a national scale would set a task so big as to be prohibitive.
The hon. and learned Member has asked me specifically what is the investigation to which I referred in my Parliamentary Answer the other day. The facts are that the Department has sponsored a scheme for research under the direction of Dr. Ann Cartwright, of the Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care. It is concerned with the care of the dying, both at home and in hospital. Information has been sought by a series of structured interviews with persons closely connected with a deceased person, supplemented by general information from doctors, local authority domiciliary workers and administrators. It is a massive piece of research work.
Results are being obtained from inquiries about nearly 800 deaths in 12 areas of England and Wales and represent a great deal of highly complex information. It is now being analysed, and a report is expected to be published next year. The sort of questions which the project seeks to answer are how, and by whom, and at what social, financial, and emotional cost, are the relevant needs of terminal patients being met; what is the extent of unmet need; why is it
204
unmet; is it through failure to ask for help, through shortage of services, or through inadequate organisation. The hon. and learned Member will surely agree that such a study as this will provide much of the basic information we need, although, as I have said, necessarily on a local rather than a national scale.
I should also mention the research carried out at St. Christopher's Hospice in London, where a number of studies are in train, again supported by my Department. One study here is largely clinical and is concerned with the problem of controlling pain in terminal cases while at the same time preserving the personality and dignity of the patients. Another study is in the development of domiciliary services from the hospice to help general practitioners. This could be said to be a study of the ways in which close cooperation between hospital and home can be achieved. A further study is concerned with the attitude of bereaved families and with ways of helping them. I understand that other studies are under way or proposed at other centres but I hope that I have said enough to show to the House the sort of inquiries which are already in progress and which will give us the sort of information upon which future plans might well be based.
Let me now turn to the question to which the hon. and learned Member devoted a good deal of his speech; namely, the question of the way in which we could so develop and build up our services as to improve the quality of the terminal care which is given to patients
Although a number of the Parliamentary Questions which the hon. and learned Member has put down over the weeks suggested that he might advocate the far more general admission of terminal patients to hospital, I am glad to know from what he said tonight that this is not the line he has pursued. From the information available to me I feel sure that it would have been entirely wrong to follow it. Dr. Cicely Saunders, who is an authority on this matter, has said that when the illness has a foreseeable end, most families wish to look after their relatives at home if it is at all possible. In so far as the hon. and learned Member has concentrated his remarks on the need to improve local authority services so as to work towards

205
this end, I am in entire sympathy with his aims. He will know, of course, that we have done a great deal to foster the development of these services.
Unfortunately, competing pressures of other urgent needs on the limited resources in manpower and money available to local authorities prevent them from providing as full a service as they would wish for the care of patients in this category. A number of local authorities already provide a night nursing service in order to give comprehensive care to those acutely ill in their own homes and for those requiring terminal care. A night sitter-up service is also available in some areas to provide respite for the families themselves, who can thus be assured of some relief during the night hours.
Provision by local health authorities of the services needed for persons in the community including those requiring terminal care has grown steadily in recent years. For example, the number of persons aged 65 and over visited by health visitors in England and Wales has in-increased from 276,000 in 1964 to 376,000 in 1969, an increase of 37 per cent. in five years. Similarly, the numbers over 65 visited in their homes by district nurses has risen by just over 30 per cent. in the same period—438,000 in 1964 to 562,000 in 1969. The number of cases in which home help was given for persons aged 65 and over increased from 283,000 in 1964 to 376,000 in 1969; that is, an increase of 33 per cent. in five years.
I would say in passing how much I appreciated the reference the hon. and learned Gentleman made to the extremely valuable and rewarding help which is given by home helps. Of particular interest here is the fact that well over 80 per cent. of all home help now provided is concentrated on the elderly. These, of
206
course, in the nature of the case, include a large number of terminal patients.
During this period, the numbers of health visitors, home nurses and home helps employed by local health authorities increased by about 12 per cent.; and the expansion of these domiciliary services has been matched by an increase in the valuable contribution by voluntary and ancillary help. Perhaps I may be allowed to emphasise the remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman made about the enormous contribution by voluntary bodies. His appreciation of them I warmly share with him. I am, of course, very conscious of the need for further development of the community services, and the hon. and learned Member may be interested to know that the Secretary of State wrote personally to the civic heads of all local health and social service authorities on 1st April seeking their help in the maintenance and strengthening of the local health services.
As I have already indicated, these services have been impressively developed in recent years and a concentrated effort by all concerned, including central and local government, is needed to ensure that standards of provision in the community services are maintained.
For their part the Government have increased the financial allocations made within the overall public expenditure budget for England and Wales for 1971/72 and 1972/73 specifically for the maintenance and development of community health and social services.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  German Democratic Republic (Trade Office)
  German Democratic Republic (Trade Office)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  European Communities (Treaties)
  European Communities (Treaties)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Immigration Bill (Representations)
  Immigration Bill (Representations)
  Overseas Diplomatic Estates Board
  Overseas Diplomatic Estates Board
  Lady Crawford
  Lady Crawford
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Israel (Foreign Secretary's Visit)
  Israel (Foreign Secretary's Visit)
  Rôle of Sterling (Leakages of Information)
  Rôle of Sterling (Leakages of Information)
  Oil Pipeline, Iran-Turkey
  Oil Pipeline, Iran-Turkey
  Hong Kong (Social Services)
  Hong Kong (Social Services)
  Zambia and Tanzania (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Zambia and Tanzania (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Banana Trade
  Banana Trade
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Ceylon
  Ceylon
  International Bodies (United Kingdom Membership)
  International Bodies (United Kingdom Membership)
  Foreign Secretary (Official Functions)
  Foreign Secretary (Official Functions)
  Common Market Safeguards Committee
  Common Market Safeguards Committee
  Japan (Common Market Agreement)
  Japan (Common Market Agreement)
  Democratic Party (Grant-in-Aid)
  Democratic Party (Grant-in-Aid)
  World Health Organisation (Membership)
  World Health Organisation (Membership)
  Peking (Diplomatic Missions)
  Peking (Diplomatic Missions)
  Prices and Charges
  Prices and Charges
  Western European Union (Foreign Secretary's Meetings)
  Western European Union (Foreign Secretary's Meetings)
  Developing Countries (Research and Development)
  Developing Countries (Research and Development)
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Zambia (Defence Aid)
  Zambia (Defence Aid)
  Passport Office (Delays)
  Passport Office (Delays)
  Royal Navy Launches (Eire)
  Royal Navy Launches (Eire)
WALES
  South Caernarvonshire (Visit)
  South Caernarvonshire (Visit)
  Gunnery Range, Pembrey
  Gunnery Range, Pembrey
  Hospital (Bangor)
  Hospital (Bangor)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Factory Closure, Mexborough
  Factory Closure, Mexborough
  London Airport (Taxis)
  London Airport (Taxis)
  Government-built Factory, Penygroes
  Government-built Factory, Penygroes
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (Orders)
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (Orders)
  Motor Insurance (Confidential Information)
  Motor Insurance (Confidential Information)
  Aircraft (Performance)
  Aircraft (Performance)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Environmental Pollution
  Environmental Pollution
  Aircraft (Smoke Emission)
  Aircraft (Smoke Emission)
  Ship Repairing (South Wales)
  Ship Repairing (South Wales)
  Factory, Swansea
  Factory, Swansea
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  United Kingdom-Australia (Tariffs)
  United Kingdom-Australia (Tariffs)
  Oil Tankers (Detergent Solvents)
  Oil Tankers (Detergent Solvents)
  Steel and Coal (Prices)
  Steel and Coal (Prices)
  Dollar Land Company Limited
  Dollar Land Company Limited
  Industrial Development Certificates (Ayrshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Ayrshire)
  Exports (Recording)
  Exports (Recording)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Banks (Rate of Interest)
  Banks (Rate of Interest)
  S.E.T. (Reduction)
  S.E.T. (Reduction)
  Blind Persons (Tax Allowance)
  Blind Persons (Tax Allowance)
  Sterling Coinage (Souvenir Issue)
  Sterling Coinage (Souvenir Issue)
SCOTLAND
  Hebrides (Harbours)
  Hebrides (Harbours)
  Salmon
  Salmon
EMPLOYMENT
  Coal Mining Industry (Wages)
  Coal Mining Industry (Wages)
  Poultry Packing Trade
  Poultry Packing Trade
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Unemployment (Wales)
  Unemployment (Wales)
  Construction Industry (Redundancy Payments)
  Construction Industry (Redundancy Payments)
ENVIRONMENT
  Common Trench
  Common Trench
  Corby New Town
  Corby New Town
  Road Signs (Metrication)
  Road Signs (Metrication)
  Bus Priority Schemes
  Bus Priority Schemes
  Rock Ferry, Birkenhead (Bypass)
  Rock Ferry, Birkenhead (Bypass)
  Road Improvements (Ipswich)
  Road Improvements (Ipswich)
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Roads (Derbyshire)
  Roads (Derbyshire)
  A525, Onneley
  A525, Onneley
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hull (Consultant Dental Surgeon Post)
  Hull (Consultant Dental Surgeon Post)
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  National Average Wage and Retirement Pension
  National Average Wage and Retirement Pension
  Optical Charges
  Optical Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Finer Report
  Finer Report
  Eire (Reciprocal Health Service Arrangements)
  Eire (Reciprocal Health Service Arrangements)
  Children's Hospitals
  Children's Hospitals
  Elderly People (Inadequate Heating)
  Elderly People (Inadequate Heating)
  Compulsory Purchase Order (Compensation)
  Compulsory Purchase Order (Compensation)
  Deaths
  Deaths
  Homeless Persons (Hackney)
  Homeless Persons (Hackney)
AGRICULTURE
  Salmon
  Salmon
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  HOUSE OF LORDS (APPEALS)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (APPEALS)
  JUDICIAL OFFICERS (POLITICAL ACTIVITY)
  JUDICIAL OFFICERS (POLITICAL ACTIVITY)
  PRICES AND CHARGES
  PRICES AND CHARGES
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.
DEFENCE
  Military Aircraft (Supersonic Flying)
  Military Aircraft (Supersonic Flying)
  Republic of Ireland (R.N. Port Survey)
  Republic of Ireland (R.N. Port Survey)
EDUCATION
  Science Research Council
  Science Research Council
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Civil Defence Vehicles (Prees Heath)
  Civil Defence Vehicles (Prees Heath)
  Ex-prisoners (Restitution of Stolen Possessions)
  Ex-prisoners (Restitution of Stolen Possessions)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Salaries)
  Members (Salaries)
  PRICES AND CHARGES
  PRICES AND CHARGES

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

STUDENTS' GRANTS: PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 when they propose to abolish the parental means test in relation to grants for students over the age of 18.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the abolition of parental contributions to students' grants has been the subject of representations which are being studied in connection with the current review of student maintenance grants. I cannot anticipate the outcome, but cost would be the critical factor.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that moderately encouraging reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? In view of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget Statement to reduce to 18 the age at which a child's income ceases to be treated as the parents' income, is not now the logical time for this change? Secondly, in view of the fact that there are undoubtedly certain hard cases arising from this provision, will the Government, even if they cannot go the whole hog establish at least a loans machinery in this area?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is that this is firmly up to the review body set up by the Sec-
910
retary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Education and Science and which, as the noble Lord knows, is doing its work in three stages. The answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary question is precisely the same.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say approximately what the cost would be?
LORD BELSTEAD: The cost of what, my Lords?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, of the concession asked for in the Question.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, it is difficult to give an exact figure. We estimate a figure quoted by the noble Lord's noble friend in a debate about a year ago of about £35 million to £40 million.

GIBRALTAR AIRPORT: LIMITATIONS AND LANDING FEES
2.38 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what seat losses are incurred by aircraft using Gibraltar due to airfield limitations; what are the total landing fees for the Trident II, BAC 1–11, Vanguard and Viscount aircraft, and how they compare with those of Malaga, Tangier and Marrakesh.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there are normally no payload restrictions on flights to Gibraltar from the United Kingdom by any of the aircraft currently used on the route. In respect of flights from Gibraltar to the United Kingdom, under average summer conditions, the potential seat losses per flight due to runway limitations at Gibraltar are as follows: Trident II—10 seats; BAC 1–11 (500 series)—40 seats; the Vanguard and Viscount aircraft are not generally subject to seat losses. As regards landing fees, the total charges per landing levied by the Ministry of Defence at Gibraltar airport on Trident II, BAC 1–11, Vanguard and Viscount aircraft respectively are as follows: £90·62, £59·23, £88·70 and £39·37.For

911
Malaga the comparable figures are understood to be approximately £25·35, £17·00, £24·96 and £11·40. The charges at Tangier and Marakesh are understood, in respect of day landings, to be approximately £44·05, £29·95, £43·25 and £14·40.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for all those details, which I shall have to study. But will my noble friend not agree that in effect the landing fees in Gibraltar are considerably higher than in the other towns he has mentioned, namely, Malaga, Tangier and Marrakesh, and could he say what justification there is, due to Spanish restrictions in Gibraltar, for having these higher landing fees? Also may I ask my noble friend to consider this point? In view of the seat losses and the limits imposed on certain types of aircraft—for instance, the Trident III cannot land, and the BAC 1–11 has a limitation of 40 seats less when taking off from Gibraltar—can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans for extending the runway? Have they considered, for instance, the Halcrow Partners scheme, which extends the runway to the East?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, the charges at Gibraltar are levied by the Ministry of Defence and are broadly related to the services provided. The basis on which the Spanish and Morroccan Governments charge airlines for using the facilities at airports in their countries are a matter entirely within their discretion. International comparisons of aircraft charges are not usually accurate because of differences in what is covered in the charges. For instance, at Malaga, Tangier and Marrakesh passengers pay a charge for the use of airport terminal facilities, whereas passengers embarking at Gibraltar pay no such charge. If we take these charges into account in relation to the amount that each airport receives for each landing it will be found that they are not nearly so much higher at Gibraltar than they are at the other airports mentioned.
My noble friend also asked me whether Her Majesty's Government had considered extending the runway so that there would be no seat loss. My information is that the runway could only
912
be extended out from the land. In order to make this worth while it would have to be extended for an additional 2,000 ft., and I am advised that the cost of this would be very expensive indeed.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply, but I believe there are plans to extend the runway to the East and to the West. I agree that the question of cost is highly relevant. May I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that there is grave disquiet in Gibraltar within the Government and the Opposition regarding this whole question of fares and air traffic? Would be bear in mind that there is a feeling in Gibraltar of lack of representation and lack of consultation between the British Government and the Gibraltar Government?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what my noble friend has said, and of course my right honourable friend will look into it, too. To put the matter into perspective, I would say that no representations have been received from air lines operating between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the subject of landing charges at Gibraltar. If such representations are received, they will, of course, be considered.

MONTENEGRO PRESIDENT'S VISIT
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements were made to entertain the President of the Council of Ministers of Montenegro during his recent visit to Britain; and in particular to meet his wish to learn about British developments in the fields of tourist provision and of dockside container handling.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, at the request of the Yugoslav

913
Embassy in London, a programme of visits in accordance with Dr. Bulajic's wishes was arranged by the Central Office of Information, on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This programme covered Dr. Bulajic's specific requests in the fields mentioned by my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he really believes that Clacton is the best example of British tourist provision? Would not anyone in this country knowing Montenegro have suggested the Highlands, Aviemore, or Wales or the South-West? Does he really think Clacton is the best we could show in regard to British tourist provision?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I personally have nothing against Clacton, and I fancy that if noble Lords in this House were asked to show an example of tourism to a foreign visitor we should probably all have different ideas. However, I am sorry that my noble friend does not see the charms of Clacton, and I have no doubt that his remarks will be noted.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's reply. May I ask him further whether he is aware that there is an opportunity to whet the Yugoslays' appetite for both British consultancy and equipment relating to container handling, and does he think Harwich is as worthy an example of that as Southampton or the Mersey, or Greenock.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, here I think we are on the same delicate ground, on which I should not like to comment to the noble Earl. All I can say is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did their best.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Marquess ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to do better next time?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess to consider taking his noble friend more seriously? We did in Opposition. He has recently been elected a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and is clearly well qualified to talk on these matters.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, and I will, of course, take into account what my noble friend has said. But these matters, as the noble Lord knows, are not quite so simple as perhaps he implies. We were asked at rather short notice by the Yugoslav Embassy to arrange this programme of visits. But, as I say, I will take into account what my noble friend has said for future occasions.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly would not wish to seek to support the noble Marquess, but is it not a fact that these arrangements are always arising as a consequence of consultation between the Embassy and Her Majesty's Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is quite correct.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Marquess think that there is something to be said for Clactonon-Sea? Is it not possible that this distinguished visitor might have been taken to the pier there and have pointed out to him the site, 10 miles to the South, where the greatest airport in the world is shortly about to be constructed?

RETIREMENT PENSIONS
2.48 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as old age pensioners each receive £5 per week but if they marry their joint pension is £8·50, they will extend to married old age pensioners a benefit similar to the separate income tax assessments for married couples proposed for 1972 and allow their pensions to be granted to each pensioner separately.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, a married woman already receives her retirement pension as a personal and separate benefit. The rate, however depends on whether she derives

915
title from her own or her husband's contributions. If she has paid full contributions she gets the full standard flat-rate pension—£5 at present, to go up to £6 next September; if she relies on her husband's contributions she gets £3·10, to go up to £3·70. A woman with the full standard rate pension retains that rate on marriage or remarriage. Thus, the normal retirement pension income of a household is £10, to go up to £12, when both husband and wife have pensions in their own right, or £8·10 to go up to £9·70, where both pensions derive from the husband's insurance. In a contributory scheme some distinction must be made between those who contribute and those who do not.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, apart entirely from the figures that the noble Lord has given, is it not a fact that in many cases parties who are married receive less than if they choose to live together, the wages of sin therefore being something like 30s. a week? Is it not important for the Government to consider that in all cases there should not be a lesser payment made to two people who are married than to two people who in those circumstances remain single?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords; I do not think the noble Lord is correct in saying that. The person who is not married will get the retirement pension he or she has earned by virtue of contributions. If the woman has not contributed and is not married she would not get a pension.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Lord do me the favour of looking again at the figures, so that in future I may raise the question again? My information is that there are very many cases in which two individuals receive more if they are single than if they are married.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I will certainly look into that matter, but I should have thought that unless they had contributed they would not receive anything.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Third London Airport at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.51 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That Standing Order No. 36(5) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Motion for an humble Address on the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Dissolution) Order to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Aldington on Wednesday, April 28.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. It had been agreed that on Wednesday, April 28, it would be for the convenience of the House that the Order dissolving the Ministry of Aviation Supply should be taken, as briefly as possible before the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Your Lordships will have noted that my noble friend Lord Carrington had a Motion down for debate on Wednesday, May 12, dealing with the Rayner Report, and the House will there-for have an opportunity of discussing very fully the reasons why it is proposed to dissolve the Ministry of Aviation Supply. In the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will agree to the Motion I am now moving. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 36 (5) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Motion for an humble Address on the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Dissolution) Order to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Aldington on Wednesday, April 28.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAYS BILL
2.53 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move,
That the Order of Commitment of March 25, last be discharged;
That a Committee of 12 Lords with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to consider the Bill, and that the Bill be committed to such Committee;
That the procedure of the Committee shall be, so far as possible, that of a Committee of the Whole House;
That the Committee shall first meet at 3 o'clock on Wednesday, April 28, and thereafter have power to adjourn from time to time;
That the Reports of the Committee's debates and the Minutes of the Committee's proceedings be published from day to day as appendices to Hansard and the Minutes of Proceedings respectively; and
That the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—

E. Howe,

L. Chesham,

L. Ferrier,

L. Fiske,

L. Henley,

L. Lindgren,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

L. Pargiter,

L. Popplewell,

L. Sandford,

L. Winterbottom.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. Your Lordships will remember that in 1968 and in 1969 it was possible to take a Public Bill in Committee off the Floor of the House, and that this proved convenient and also helped to expedite business. It is in the hope that it will be for the benefit of the House that I am moving this Motion to-day. The Motion is in similar terms to those moved on the two previous occasions, and the Bill will, of course, be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House at the conclusion of its Committee stage.
The Procedure Committee has made certain recommendations as to the pro-
918
cedure to be followed in the Committee. These recommendations are contained in the Procedure Committee's Third Report, which the House will have an opportunity of considering to-morrow. Broadly speaking, it is our hope, as indicated in the present Motion, that the procedure will be as similar as possible to that of a Committee of the Whole House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of March 25 last be discharged;
That a Committee of 12 Lords with the Chairman of Committee be appointed to consider the Bill, and that the Bill be committed to such Committee;
That the procedure of the Committee shall he, so far as possible, that of a Committee of the Whole House;
That the Committee shall first meet at 3 o'clock on Wednesday April 28, and thereafter have power to adjourn from time to time;
That the Reports of the Committee's debates and the Minutes of the Committee's proceedings be published from day to day as appendices to Hansard and the Minutes of Proceedings respectively; and
That the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees he named of the Committee:—

E. Howe,

L. Chesham,

L. Ferrier,

L. Fiske,

L. Henley,

L. Lindgren,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

L. Pargiter,

L. Popplewell,

L. Sandford,

L. Winterbottom.

—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we certainly welcome the continuation of this experiment. I take it that all noble Lords are aware (I assume that the arrangement is as previously) that any noble Lord can attend the Committee, can speak, and can even move Amendments, but cannot vote. This was the arrangement which I think worked satisfactorily in the past. While not necessarily wishing to encourage too many people to do so, none the less there will

919
be occasions when this might be helpful. I should be grateful if the noble Earl can confirm that that is so.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am very happy to be able to confirm that what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has suggested is in fact the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
2.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships in debating the Motion that we go into Committee on the Bill, but I think this is the right moment to make certain remarks about the conduct of the Bill rather than seeking to do so on the first Amendment, which is a formula that we have sometimes used. I do not wish to detain your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Diamond, who is here looking full of health, will perhaps be able to add to this point. It is not my intention to spend long on this Motion, but I think it may be useful if we clear certain matters out of the way. I would first of all repeat that there is not the slightest intention that we should filibuster. Indeed, if we want to take a long time over this Bill—and I do not know how much time we do want to take—there is plenty of opportunity, and proper opportunity, to do so without filibustering, because there is quite a lot of new business.
It is clear that very heavy responsibilities rest on us, and that the country—and indeed I believe all sides of the House—intend that your Lordships should do their duty in regard to this Bill. The seriousness of the matter has been reinforced by a television programme which I saw on Saturday—some of your Lordships may have seen it—in which I observed a number of officials of the
920
House busy moving camp beds in. I may say they were not intended for your Lordships, but for the staff who serve us so well.
The Government Chief Whip has told us that for the first time in history there is a Three Line Whip. I am unable to check, as I have not access to Conservative Party records, but I should be surprised if the Duke of Wellington did not occasionally, in those days, have a Three Line Whip. We also saw a very heavy graph about the average age of Members of your Lordships' House. It was a kind of exponential curve, but then, instead of becoming sigmoid, it suddenly went down—with sudden death, so far as I could tell. The Government have apparently authorised all these arrangements—there will even be some food for your Lordships—in anticipation of a Bill which the noble Earl described as rather smaller than the Transport Bill. This is a Bill which traverses territory which we have not travelled before. Indeed, the Government have gone out of their way to explain that this is a fundamental Bill, long overdue. It certainly contains a number of new principles which we shall have to discuss, aided, I hope, by some of the learned law Lords—particular issues certainly arise on the first Amendment.
Your Lordships may have seen on the Order Paper a Motion which we have since removed; it was an Instruction to take Part II before Part I. This Instruction was conceived as a result of awareness of the significance of the code of practice to which the Government have attached so much importance. We finally removed it for two reasons, one being that the postponement of Part I until after Part II did not seem to allow enough time for the preparation of the code of practice. The noble Earl spoke about expecting it to be ready in "a matter of weeks ". It is always interesting to decide what "a matter of weeks" is. I feel "a matter of weeks" is somewhere between two and eight weeks, and, assuming it is eight weeks, I should have thought it was possible that we could have gone beyond Part I by then, though I would not wish to be optimistic in this matter.
This presents us with a quite serious problem, and we had contemplated putting down a Motion which would have

921
the effect of committing the House, or the Government, to recommitting certain clauses after the code was published. It would obviously be rather premature to start recommitting clauses before we had even gone into Committee. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to raise this matter now, not with an intention of dividing on this Motion to go into Committee, but in order to probe the Government's intentions with regard to the publication of the code of practice and to test how willing they would be to recommit.
It has struck me recently that we have new clauses, new Amendments, brought into Bills at Report stage and, under the restraints that are imposed under the Rules of Order of a Report stage, we are not able to discuss them in the same way that we can in Committee. There have recently been one or two examples where the House will probably feel that we have hurried a little undesirably. Therefore, I hope that when the code of practice—which bears very much on a number of the clauses and on a number of the Parts of the Bill; Part V. Part II and others—is published, it will, if necessary, provide an occasion for recommitment of certain of the clauses. The difficulty is that the Government are not proposing to schedule this code of practice to the Bill, which I think would have been desirable. I understand that they have a certain hesitation because they are afraid we might start discussing it and even improving it. But it can have a bearing on our judgment on the clauses. It could make for an easier passage for the Bill; it could, on the other hand, make it even more difficult.
I say this in no threatening way, but we are facing a real dilemma on this matter. I say that because—I am sure noble Lords will agree; and I think that the Government have accepted this—it is by the code of practice, in the responsibility of employers, in the degree to which there is proper consultation, in the training of shop stewards and many issues which we shall have an opportunity to discuss later, that we shall be able to judge the relevance of the clauses, particularly those which impose restraints on the system of voluntary bargaining.
So I would ask the noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal—whereas, clearly, he cannot commit himself on these two points—
922
first, when he hopes that the code of practice will be published; and, secondly, depending on how we feel about that, how far the Government will see their way to agreeing to recommitment. It may well be that in any case, depending on progress, we shall wish to put down Motions of the kind I mentioned, but I do not think it would be right to do so to-day. A great deal will depend on the attitude of the Government and the remarks that I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is now going to make.
3.3 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, has spoken with his habitual silver tongue and has shown his usual procedural ingenuity. He has managed—very well, if I may say so—to make an admirable Second Reading speech; at least, a "mini" one. Before I turn to the more serious matters, I must confess that I did not have the good fortune to see the television programme to which he alluded at the start of his remarks, but I have seen the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I should like to congratulate him in advance on his aboriginal hue. If I may say so without any racial overtones, he is a sort of patrial in reverse.
The Government readily understand the desire of your Lordships to see the code of practice as soon as possible, and to have an opportunity of seeing the relationship of this code to the Bill before your Lordships' House at the present time. I should like to assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has pressed on with very considerable urgency with the preparation of the code. I made it clear during our Second Reading debate, and I am glad to reaffirm that this is the position now, that it is my right honourable friend's intention to publish a preliminary draft of the code—I think we should be careful in terminology here; it is distinct from what is embodied in the Bill—in the next few weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me what I meant by "the next few weeks". I mean the next few weeks, and not the next few months. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that in his mind "the next few weeks" meant something between two and eight weeks. I should

923
like to say that it means something not very dissimilar for me.
In any event, the idea would be that after the widest possible consultation a further and revised draft of the code would be laid before Parliament for approval in the autumn. I should like to make it clear to those noble Lords who may be a bit impatient about all this, that the timetable to which my right honourable friend is working is a considerably more rapid one than that which is envisaged in subsection (1) of Clause 3 of the Bill. There, as your Lordships will see, the Secretary of State is only required to lay a draft code a year after the date on which the Bill now before us becomes law. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he would have hoped that the code was in some way a Schedule to the Bill. I quite see his point; indeed, in the Conservative Party's proposals in Opposition in Fair Deal at Work it was originally suggested that the code should be an annexe to the Bill. On that, I should merely like to point out that it is only after careful consideration that we have come to the conclusion that the code must be flexible; that is to say, it should be a code which is readily capable of being kept up to date. It is for that reason that we feel it would not be appropriate to attach it as part of the Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Why can it not he kept up to date as part of the Bill? There is ample provision. It is just as easy to keep it up to date by Order, if it is part of the Bill. I do not know who is advising the noble Earl procedurally, but I do not understand this point.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will gladly look into that. All I can say is that my advice on this matter is fairly expert.
May I turn to the more serious point behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; that is, the possibility of re-committal? On that, there is, first, a procedural point. Your Lordships will see from page 79 of the Companion, that a Bill can be recommitted only after it has passed the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and I should like to make it clear that recommitment is a procedure to which we
924
have resorted pretty infrequently in your Lordships' House; we have done it about a score of times in the last one hundred years. I am not saying that for that reason it is not something we can do. We did it, as I remember very well, at the start of the Labour Government on the Airports Authority Act, when a very important clause was recommitted in your Lordships' House. This is a procedure to which we have resorted only very occasionally, but I should be the first to grant that this is a procedure to which we could resort so far as this Bill is concerned.
All I would suggest is that we need not take this particular fence at this particular time. It would be a mistake for us (indeed, in view of what is said by the Companion it would really be impossible for us) to pre-empt this decision at this particular stage, and we can revert to the possibility of recommitting the Bill in whole or in part when the preliminary draft of the code has become available and after our Committee stage is over: and I think that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a fairly clear indication of when that may be. If it was then the general feeling of your Lordships that recommittal would be desirable—and at this stage I do not wish to commit myself either way—we could deal with that matter quite appropriately, quite properly, at that stage, and, I would also say, very quickly through the usual channels. That would be my response to the question which, understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has ventilated at this stage.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the television programme which he did not see on Saturday night it was stated that this House was to have its sittings rearranged in order that those noble Lords with interests outside could attend more regularly? If that means starting later in the afternoon, would the noble Earl like to make a comment on it and say whether it is only a rumour or whether there is anything in it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I did not see that programme and I take no responsibility for it. I was engaged on much more important business at the time; namely, the annual general meeting of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust —at which, unfortunately, the noble

925
Viscount, Lord St. Davids, was not present. I think I can assure the noble Baroness, without having seen the programme, that what was said there, if it is correctly reported by her, was nonsense.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House one question? Since the whole House, I think, regards the code of practice as being fundamental, may I ask him whether it would be possible to make this period closer to the two weeks than to the eight weeks? In any event, may I ask him—and I do not press him for an answer now—to consider the possibility, if it is going to be nearer the eight weeks, of reporting progress to your Lordships during our discussions on the Committee stage? It would be helpful to us to know how things are going.
EARL JELLICOE: I shall of course be glad to accede to a very reasonable request of that nature. I should not wish to prejudge at the present time whether the period will be nearer to two weeks than to eight weeks, but what I should like to assure the noble Lord, and sincerely assure him, is that my right honourable friend wishes to get this preliminary draft of the code out for consultation as soon as conceivably and reasonably possible.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as to the television programme mentioned by the noble Baroness, I must say that I am delighted that the B.B.C. gave this House such coverage in this excellent programme. May I suggest that the noble Baroness may have wrongly picked up something that was said? My recollection is that they referred to the Judges, and said that it was the intention of the House to provide opportunities for the Judges, after they had concluded their legal business, to take part.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether, when this code of practice is submitted to the House it will be subject to the Negative Resolution machinery? Will it be capable of amendment if it is not committed to the House as previously suggested? Because if this code of practice, as we understand, will form the subject of quite a bit of discussion, surely the House should be able to submit amendments. It is that position that I want some clarification about.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will see from subsection (2) of Clause 3 that the draft code, as such, requires the Affirmative Resolution approval of both Houses of Parliament; but what we are talking about here is not the draft code. I should like to be quite clear about this: it is the preliminary draft of the draft code.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for two of the things he has said, and then to press him a little more on the third. One of the things for which I should like to thank him is the comments he made about our procedure and recommittal. He said—and quite rightly, if I may say so with respect —that there was no need to take that fence at this time. He also made it perfectly clear that he would be prepared to consider (he did not say "sympathetically", but it seemed to me his whole tone was, as usual, sympathetic) the question of recommittal when the preliminary draft of the draft was available. It follows, from that—and if I am wrong I should be a little surprised—that the latest possible date for the publication of the preliminary draft would be before we reach the end of the Committee stage. I say that, on the assumption that you cannot recommit once you are on Report. I do not know whether the noble Earl agrees with me. Therefore, I assume that that would be the latest possible date.
But I want to press the noble Earl to be a little more forthcoming than he has been. He was good enough to say that it is his right honourable friend's desire that this preliminary code should be published; and that brings me to the second thing wanted to thank him for, and that is his undertaking to publish a preliminary draft. With respect, I think this is absolutely right: the way to make progress, which we are all concerned with, is for a preliminary draft to be published and not for us to wait until there is the final draft as described in the Bill itself. A preliminary draft would be very helpful indeed. But, as I said, I want to press him a little more to get the preliminary draft in our hands, for one main reason only, and that is that your Lordships will recognise that we are in great difficulty on this Bill. It is a Bill which seeks co-operation, but is

927
evidently failing to get it from one of the main sources from which it should be forthcoming. Therefore we are faced with something of a deadlock, and all of us wish to see some road along which we could make progress.
I am quite sure, from what was said during the Second Reading debate, from what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, from what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and from what was said by many of those who contributed to that debate, that many anxieties will be removed, many shadows will be laid to rest and we shall really be able to make some progress if the code of practice is published. I do not need to persuade the House that the code of practice is the kernel of this Bill. I think everybody accepts that. Clause 2 deals with it. It has been made Clause 2 very wisely. It would be Clause 1 but for the fact that Clause 1 is a descriptive clause. That is not a legislative clause: it is purely descriptive. So the first effective provision of this Bill is the one introducing the code of practice. I am only saying we are all on the same ground. Nothing could be more important than the code of practice.
My Lords, one never knows to what extent one should believe what one is told, but I am told that the Press have seen a draft of this code. I do not know to what extent that is right. I do not know to what extent this is a method of accustoming people to what is going to be put before them in a more formal form later on—what is generally called "a deliberate leak". In the present atmosphere, I do not want to use the word "leak" too much. I do not even want to know whether the Press has received one, in confidence or not. All I want to assure the noble Earl the Leader of the House is that we should. I am sure, make much more sensible and practical progress, both in this House and outside, if we could get our teeth into something practical that everybody could understand, management and labour. It is his desire and my desire to make real progress, and that is why my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition took this opportunity. I wonder whether the noble Earl could draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the real help
928
that it would be if those who are engaged in no doubt very heavy work on producing this code could speed it up and get it forward at an earlier time than he has so far indicated.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I endorse what my noble friend has said and thank the Leader of the House for his exposition and for his promise to try to expedite the production of this code. There is something in the code which I think has not been noticed so far in either House. This code of practice is the core of the Bill. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but at an appropriate moment I hope to be able to come in on Clause 4 and explain what I think is the contradiction between the semantics and what is intended by Clause 4. May I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that on May 3, 1926, where there was a nine day general strike, the T.U.C. immediately got in touch with its organisations throughout Great Britain known as trades councils, whose objective was to keep peace? They gave the direction to keep peace, and to organise the strikes and pickets peacefully. That as much as anything was also a code of practice at a vital position when heat is generated in the industrial field. I should like to know whether this code of practice has an understanding of or knows the functions of trades councils at tense moments in industrial strife. The clarity of the code is absolutely essential, and it would be a good thing if this House could have it early in order to debate it constructively. I do not want to delay the House in a frivolous way, but I hope that in the code of practice attention will be directed to the functions of trades councils when there are real industrial problems confronting a region, an area or an industry.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. I too believe that the code of practice is very much at the core of this Bill, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State feels that too, and that he will do everything he can to bring it forward at the earliest possible time. It would be immensely helpful to our deliberations here if we could see the contents of the code of practice at the earliest possible date, but clearly we cannot ask the impossible of the Secretary of State.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not some confusion developing about this proposed code of practice? Those noble Lords who have read the debates in another place must have noticed that Mr. Carr, the Minister responsible, gave an assurance, as indeed did the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that a preliminary draft would be submitted for the purposes of consultation. The intention was to consult the F.B.I. and the Trades Union Congress and, on representations made in the course of the debate in the other place, Members of Parliament also. Indeed, there is to be full consultation on the preliminary draft.
Following the preliminary draft and the consultations and submissions that will be made accordingly, it is the intention of the Government, through the medium of an Affirmative Resolution, to submit the code of practice to the other place, and presumably the same will apply in your Lordships' House. That Affirmative Resolution will not be amendable—that is quite clear—but I gather from the debate in the other place that it was not the intention through the medium of the Affirmative Resolution presented to the House, to publish the final code of practice until after the Bill had passed. Therefore there is not the interlocking that some of my noble friends have suggested, or have in mind. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, does not that not clarify the position? Is that not precisely what his right honourable friend the Minister responsible, has said in the course of the debates in another place?
EARL JELLICOE: I think I need the leave of your Lordships' House to speak further at the present time. I should like to say a few words, if I have the leave of your Lordships' House, in response to what has been said. I am grateful to noble Lords for the way in which they have dealt with this matter. What I should like to emphasise again at this stage is that the Government are fully aware, as I was fully aware before this afternoon, of the importance attached in all quarters of your Lordships' House to this code of practice. I have listened attentively to what my noble friend Lord Amory had to say on that. The Government are aware, and I, too, am aware, of the degree of urgency your Lordships attach to this matter.
930
I should not like to be wrongly understood, or misunderstood here, or incorrectly heard, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said that I had promised to expedite this matter. What I had promised to do, and what I had explained, was that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in fact expediting this matter; that he was fully aware of the need for speed and that he was proceeding with a great deal more rapidity than the programme which was envisaged in the Bill itself. Naturally, I shall draw to his attention the sentiments expressed, not only from noble Lords opposite but also from behind me, on not only the importance but also the urgency attached to this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, stated the position correctly so far as the Bill is concerned; but I must make it clear that the purpose of the code of practice is to set standards and guidelines to encourage responsible collective bargaining. The code itself will not set down what is lawful or what is unlawful, with one tiny exception. The whole idea is to set guidelines and standards. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, correctly interpreted my right honourable friend's views in that respect. I do not think there is anything more that I can say at the present time, except to see that the views which were very fairly expressed in your Lordships' House at the start of what may be a longish discussion in Committee stage are fairly and responsibly reported to my honourable friend.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I ask one question? It is correct, is it not, that we can recommit at any time up to and including Third Reading? I am almost sure that this is so.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat may I ask, given that the code of practice under Clause 2 has to underline the principles of the Bill, whether it is thought that the code will range very widely beyond the unfair industrial practices already set out in the Bill?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have not sat down so I need not stand up again, as it were; but with your Lordships' permission I do not think, if my noble friend would excuse me, that it

931
would be right and proper for me to go into the substance of the code at the present time. All I should like to say, since I am on this point, is that I have no reason to believe that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that there may have been some intimation given to the Press of its contents, are in fact justified I shall check on this point, but it would surprise me very much indeed if it were so. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it is certainly my understanding that while the Bill may be recommitted after the Committee stage at any time before Third Reading, that has a bearing on the timing—a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, tot a little wrong: But we all get the Companion a little wrong at times.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General principles]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): I have to draw the attenof the Committee to the fact that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I shall not be able to put Amendment No. 2.
3.36 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("of") to end of line 11 and insert ("orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis;")
The noble Lord said: I rise at possibly an historic moment in this House. It all depends upon how long we take on the Committee stage whether this is the beginning of a record. But it is clear—or I hope that it is clear—to Members who sit on the Government side that we are approaching this Committee stage responsibly and the Amendments which we have put down are of a kind that bear either on particular details of importance or on principles. I therefore make no apology for moving an Amendment which was certainly discussed fairly fully in another place but which is none the 'less part of the fundamental principles of the Government's industrial relations
932
policy which they have seen fit to put into the opening clauses of the Bill.
There is quite a lot to be said for the view expressed by Mr. Enoch Powell in another place, that we might on occasion consider returning to the concept of the Preamble. It is a difficult issue. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will recall that we sweated quite a lot over the Preamble to the House of Lords Reform Bill. None the less, this is an important statement and we certainly cannot let it pass in a Bill, so much of which we object to, without probing very much further. So much of the Government's policy as set out in the Bill sounds like a statement of reasonable good intentions; but, in fact there are the most grievous anxieties about its significance, and these anxieties are fortified by the words of the Government in certain areas.
The Amendment which I am moving seeks to leave out of subsection (1)(a), which begins "the principle of," the words:
"collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted"
and to insert instead:
"orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis".
There may be some noble Lords who, like many members of the public when they come to reading parts of the Bill say, "I cannot see the difference." Those of your Lordships who have read the discussions in another place on this can see that there are some very important differences. We shall have the opportunity in later Amendments (unless we can persuade the Government to accept this Amendment) to discuss in more detail words like "democratically" and "voluntarily agreed". But I want first of all to discuss the use of the word "responsibly". Here we are in difficulties almost at once on the point raised by my noble friend Lady Bacon: that, so far as I can see, there are no Law Lords present at the moment—because if there is one thing that was apparent in another place it was that there were four or five different meanings given to the word "responsible ". To me, as a layman, the word "responsible" means sensible behaviour. It seems rather harmless. But reading the exchanges in another place, it has Pickwickian or legal meanings of the most

933
drastic kind. Certain Members in another place said that it did not matter and that it might therefore either be left in or taken out. But when we came to the remarks of Mr. Carr we found, not for the first time, that he was in difficulties over the legal interpretation of his own Bill. He was pressed very hard on this matter and he made a number of statements as to what it means. When he was asked what it means he said:
"precisely what it says."
Here, I should have liked to hear the views of the Law Officers. Mr. Carr went on:
"The courts have never found it difficult to give judgment on what is reasonable, fair, equitable, just and responsible in relation to the circumstances of the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 18/1/71, col. 581.]
That being so, I wonder why we bother to have courts at all.
The word "responsible" in this case has a somewhat authoritarian ring and can mean different things. It can mean, in the case of trade unionists or shop stewards or trade union secretaries, that they are properly authorised. As I understand it—and here it may be that my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, can be helpful; or the noble and learned Lord who normally sits on the Woolsack, who I hope will be taking part in our Committee stage—it could mean that they have to behave in a responsible way to their clients: in the case of employers' representatives, to their firms; in the case of trade union representatives, to their members. When Mr. Carr was pressed on this, he said:
"I am not a lawyer, I have had the good fortune not to have to appear in court … If there is an abstruse though important legal principle involved here, no doubt we shall be able to return to it at a later stage, when someone qualified in technical terms can deal with it."— [col. 579.]
At this moment I am inclined to look to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who usually does not shrink from giving us wise advice on these matters.
On this point of retreat on the part of Mr. Carr when he was pressed further he relied, like a good lawyer, upon the principle, "If your case is bad, abuse the plaintiff", or whatever the phrase is, for he said:
"When I hear these points of order, if I may call them that, I am reinforced in my original impression on reading the Amend-
934
ment which is no more than nitpicking filibustering."—[col. 580.]
Then there were one or two interventions—and I may say this was on the first Amendment. It had not been going on for long, and Mr. Carr spoke for 17 columns of Hansard,admittedly with a few interruptions. It is not therefore surprising that we should like an authoritative opinion on a matter which certainly exercised a number of Members in another place and to which the Government apparently attach importance. If they do not attach importance and it does not have some significant meaning which Mr. Carr was unable to explain—he did not have the help of his great standby, the Attorney General, who has been responsible for this Bill and is the one person who thinks he understands it —I hope that the Government can accept the Amendment, because our suspicions have been aroused. They have been aroused also by the contradictions in the Government's own statements.
In regard to incomes policy (I do not propose to discuss incomes policy now; although there was a great deal of discussion on it in another place), they do not think the State should intervene. Yet here, I understand, they do think the State should intervene. When they say, "It is not the State, it is the courts" it shows a very curious lack of understanding of what is the State apparatus. Of course, Mr. Carr and this Government believe in intervening. They lean heavily on independent, freely negotiated, collective bargaining, freely and responsibly conducted; but when a dispute takes place and an independent tribunal like the Scamp Committee is appointed and a decision taken which they do not like, they scream like anything and try to "sack"—I beg your Lordships' pardon —"fail to reappoint" one of the members of the Committee. We have grave suspicions whether the collective bargaining they are talking about will in fact be free from State control when we see the complex machinery they are putting forward to ensure that it is not freely negotiated.
We believe that the right approach to industrial relations is what might be called the Donovan one: the voluntary approach; the steady development of procedures with the type of work the Commission on Industrial Relations has

935
been doing and will no longer be able to do. We believe in gradually gaining confidence and developing new procedures. For this reason we have put the emphasis on the voluntary basis. I suspect that a number of my noble friends will wish to speak on this Amendment because, like this clause, the Amendment strikes right at the heart of the Bill. We did not approach this during the Second Reading debate. In particular, we do not know what the word "responsible" means. Responsible to whom? In what way? Responsible for what? Does it mean responsible to the body which authorises them to act, or to the other bargaining party? Everyone has to behave responsibly in certain ways. Even lawyers behave responsibly and operate in the interests of their clients, but with certain rules. Does "responsible" mean responsible to the Government? Rather understandably, noble Lords talk about the national interest. We all accept that to be right. But it is part of the difficulty in which we find ourselves over this Bill. We are breaking new ground and we shall have to press the Government very hard for an explanation. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: FOULNESS SITE
3.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like now with permission, to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been making in another place on the Third London Airport. This is my right honourable friend's Statement:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement. The Government has considered with great care the Roskill Commission report, the views expressed in recent debates in both Houses of Parliament and the many representations made by a wide range of interests
936
on the siting of the third London Airport.
"The Government has now taken certain basic decisions about the need, timing and location of the airport,
"It is the Government's aim to encourage the development of aviation and to maintain Britain's share of civil aviation in the international field. The Government accepts the unanimous recommendation of the Commission that a third London Airport will be needed and that the first runway should be operational by about 1980. It considers that additional airport capacity is required in the South-East, not only to meet the inevitable increase in air traffic now foreseen but also to bring relief at the earliest practicable date to the noise and environmental problems created by the existing airports in the region. The Government endorses the Commission's assumption that there would then be no need to provide additional runways at other airports in the London area. An airport outside the region would not meet the need. It would involve unacceptable risks to defer the provision of a third airport on the basis of speculative technological developments such as STOL, or to plan on the assumption that future needs could be met by a site incapable of expansion over time to a full four-runway capacity.
"The Government has power to regulate the use of British Airport Authority's airports in the interests of the reduction of noise; I propose to consult airport owners immediately about the inclusion of provisions in the current Civil Aviation Bill to extend these powers in due course to other airports where noise is a serious problem.
"Secondly the Government has weighed with care the economic arguments identified by the Commission which indicated an inland site, and the regional planning and environmental issues which the Commission also identified. As the Commission's Report stressed, on environmental and planning grounds the Foulness site is the best, and the Government has concluded that these considerations are of paramount importance. In the Government's view, the irreversible

937
damage that would be done to large tracts of countryside and to many settled communities by the creation of an airport at any of the three inland sites studied by the Commission is so great that it is worth paying the price involved in selecting Foulness. The Commission has clearly indicated that the Foulness site has its economic and environmental disadvantages.
"The Government is confident that an airport at Foulness will meet the needs of aviation despite the economic penalty involved. Speedy means of access and efficient operation can reduce this penalty, and the use of the new airport would be encouraged by stricter limits on movements at other airports. Such limits, which the new airport would make possible, would help to reduce noise at existing airports. It will be open to the British Airports Authority so to arrange charges between its airports as to stimulate traffic at Foulness. On these assumptions, which differ from those made by the Commission, the new airport can be expected in time to make a proper return on capital invested there, though it may not become self-supporting as quickly as one at an inland site.
"A start will now he made on the planning of the new airport at Foulness. We shall have particularly in mind the precise location of the runways in the light of all the relevant cost, operation, noise and environmental factors.
"Proposals have been made for a joint development at Foulness with participation by private capital involving as well a seaport and associated industrial development. The Government is examining the concepts involved. Meantime plans will be made for the airport on a basis that will not rule out a seaport and associated development being fitted into the site if this proves desirable.
"The construction of the airport at Foulness will entail the early relocation of the Ministry of Defence Establishment at Shoeburyness. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales has announced that the proposal before him to move the establishment to Pembrey will not be proceeded with. The Government is considering alternative
938
arrangements and will shortly consult the local authorities and other bodies concerned.
"The Secretary of State for the Environment will now proceed to discuss urgently with the various authorities concerned the scale and location of the urban development which the airport will involve and the action needed to secure it. The planning of the necessary road and rail links will be put in hand. All this, with the airport, will present over the next decade a great opportunity for imaginative integrated development.
"These decisions, dealing as they do with the larger part of our air traffic, will provide a basis on which studies can be pursued to establish the desirable pattern of airport development in the rest of the country."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I am glad, as I am sure we all are, that the planning blight has been lifted at the earliest possible opportunity from the three inland sites that are no longer in the running. But let there be no mistake about it: this is an escapist solution. It has no relevance at all to the real facts of the future possibilities and needs of air transport, if the work goes ahead on the East Coast, away from the main flows of air traffic, without further appreciation of other possibilities, including a much more sensible two-runway airport on the South Coast and STOL, or QTOL, as I called it, it may well prove to be the most extravagant mis-use of concrete since the Maginot Line was built, and for much the same reasons.
May I ask three questions of detail? On what estimate of access costs was this decision made about Foulness, and who is to pay for those costs? Secondly, who is to pay for the dredging around the Maplin Sands before construction begins? Thirdly, the Statement says that the airport can "in time" be expected to make a proper return. May I ask what is the time scale which the noble Earl has in mind, and in the meantime will the British Airports Authority be expected to pay its own way?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am afraid that from these Benches I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his wholesale condemnation. We feel that this is a triumph of environmental standards over purely economic considerations. I think there will be need for a great deal more examination of the requirements of airports throughout the rest of the country, but there must be widespread relief that the inland areas are not going to be desecrated as they might have been.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess, with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I found the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, rather more sympathetic. I also think that those comments accorded very much more with the view generally expressed in your Lordships' House in a long two days' discussion which we devoted to this matter. But, that said. I should like to contest the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I am a little concerned that he has sprung into almost instant opposition on this decision, which has been carefully and very deeply pondered and which, I am entirely convinced, is in the greater interests of all of us over the longer term. It is not an escapist decision: it was only after very careful consideration that we came to the conclusion that it would be folly to embark now upon a site which was not capable of expansion to four runways. I am not saying that one will be needed, but it could be needed, and the South Coast site to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has referred would inevitably be a two-runway one.
On the question of STOL—and I readily acknowledge the noble Lord's expertise in this matter—after very careful consideration, and with the unanimous backing of the Roskill Commission, we came to the conclusion that to postpone a decision on the possibilities of the future development of VTOL and STOL would be far too much of a gamble in the time available. As to access costs, I think that these have been evaluated (though on this point I speak subject to correction) and they are fully set out on pages 254–55 of the Roskill Report I think it means that the discounted expenditure on road access to Foulness would be £28·5 million and the cost of rail access, £38·4 million. So far
940
as I know (but I am afraid that I have not had the chance of going into this in detail) the Government do not contest these figures. I should like again to pay tribute to the Roskill Commission as such because, although we are not accepting their main recommendation on site, we do believe that the spadework they have done has been of quite invaluable importance.
The noble Lord asked who will pay for the dredging. That will be part of the general construction costs. So far as the timing of the costs are concerned, so far as the British Airports Authority budgeting is concerned, my understanding is that their present target covers the period up to April, 1972, and should not be affected by Third London Airport expenditure. Their target for future years will, of course, have to take into account expenditure on Foulness. The Government are confident that over a period of time—and it will be a longer period of time than if we had chosen Cublington—this airport will pay its way. We believe that that extra cost will be well worth paying by the nation, in terms of what the choice of any of the three inland sites would have meant to the environment of our countryside and for the enjoyment of that countryside and environment by our children and grandchildren.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the Statement and say that, so far as I am concerned—though I may be alone in this—it pleases me very much indeed. As this public development will be at the expense of the nation, can the Government take steps to ensure that land speculators do not exploit the position'? Is the noble Earl aware that only a few months ago one local authority, when taking over a rough farm, valued at £300 an acre, was ordered by the district valuer to compensate the owner at the rate of £20,000 an acre; and will he see that this kind of thing does not happen at Foulness?
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, for his welcome of the Statement. I am not entirely surprised by his welcome; none the less my gratitude is sincere. I would add that I will take careful note of what he said about land speculators and see that it is brought to the attention of my

941
right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a good many noble Lords from these Back Benches would like to dissociate themselves from the criticism that has come from our Front Bench and congratulate the Government on what is a perfectly obviously right decision?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I associate myself with the views expressed from the Back Bench on the other side?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this decision will be widely welcomed, not least because of its merit in terms of the economic geography of this island, being plumb in the middle of industrial Western Europe? But can he say whether the Government will henceforth be willing to listen to proposals from private enterprise consortia for the development of other estuaries in Britain, such as the Severn, the Lune, the Humber, the Clyde and the Forth?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again I am grateful for my noble friend's welcome of the Statement, and I am not surprised by his supplementary. In general terms the answer is, Yes.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I add one other nosegay to the bouquet presented to the noble Earl and ask him whether he is aware that his Statement, so far as it affects Pembrey, will afford great satisfaction in Wales, and particularly in Carmarthenshire?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Earl what the Government have in mind to replace the Maplin Sands for the Army, now that Pembrey has dropped out. This is a crucial problem. May I ask the noble Earl whether we ought, in the surge of relief that Cublington is to be preserved—a relief which we all share—to ignore the consequences? While acknowledging the noble Earl's tribute to Roskill, is it not a little odd that the Government should plead him in support when they are rejecting the Commission's main recommendation?
942
May I ask the noble Earl further, in regard to this South Coast proposal, which has never really, so far as I know, been put forward and considered—and knowing that people have consistently estimated the time scale wrongly—whether even now it might not be better, as there is going to be grave trouble over Foulness (I personally happen to welcome it, for a number of reasons, but many other people do not), to adopt the two-runway solution and allow it to tide us over until such time as the VTOL or the QTOL aircraft are available? I hope that the noble Earl will not be misled, especially by some noble Lords who have personal concern (I do not mean financial concern) in these matters and are relieved that the site is not to be Cublington, into assuming that what must have been a very difficult decision for the Government is not going to be without a great deal of controversy. We still do not know how much more it is going to cost the taxpayer to adopt Foulness; but certainly, if we are to follow what Roskill said, it will cost us all a great deal more.
4.3 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's three supplementaries, I would say first that I am fully aware of the importance of the Shoeburyness range. All I can say at the present t me is that, apart from the Pembrey negative decision, the Government are considering alternative locations, and we shall be consulting with the local authorities concerned. I cannot say more at this stage. Secondly, I do not think it was unfair of me to plead Roskill in aid. Where I was pleading the Roskill Commission in aid was their unanimous opinion that a Third London Airport in the South-East was required, and required soon. I think that this was a fair point to make.
On the South Coast point, I speak here as somebody who has no personal interest, financially or otherwise, in the matter, but with the interest which I think all noble Lords have, that we should try as a nation to take the best decision possible here, and then see that the resulting decision is implemented so that we have a really first-class airport in this place. All I can say is that, having carefully considered this in the light of all the factors—and we have given this most careful consideration—this is the

943
decision we have come to: we have come to it firmly, and we now intend to go ahead with all those concerned to try and make a success of it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder if on reflection the noble Earl will not agree that he is being a little unfair when he speaks of my "instant opposition". Would be not agree, knowing the kind of solution that I have put forward, that I have the environment as much in mind as anyone, and that all I am trying to do is to make technology serve environment and not the other way round. I should like to ask the noble Earl one other question. He says that it was essential to have a four-runway site. Does he not agree that the Commission itself said that there will be no use for the third runway until 1995 and for the fourth runway until after the year 2000? May I ask the noble Earl whether he and his advisers really think that by the year 2000 we shall need five or six miles of concrete to enable an aircraft to get off this earth?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not wish to bandy the technicalities with the noble Lord, whose technical expertise in this matter I fully recognise. If I said something over-hastily about the four runway site, I gladly withdraw. What intended to say was that it was the Government's firm decision that it would be a mistake to choose a site which was not capable of expansion over a period of time, if need be, to accommodate four runways. Again, I of course withdraw straight away if in the heat of the moment on hearing the noble Lord's remarks—we have heard his views before on this—I accused him of instant opposition. I know his deep interest in this matter. I read his article in Flight on it; we heard him when we debated the subject in our two-day debate. I acquit the noble Lord of instant opposition, because he has already opposed it some little time ago.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, would it be reasonable to add as a tribute to the Roskill Commission Report the fact that
944
it contains the Buchanan Minority Report, which makes a very fine contribution to the whole question of conservation, and also brings into the picture the possibility of the effect of the Foulness Airport on the development in East London?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, having spent part of the weekend, when I was not addressing the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust, reading the noble Baroness's autobiographical memoirs, and having derived great satisfaction from them, I say straight away that I agree very much with what she has just said.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, can I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether we might have a further debate on the ancillary advantages of Foulness? First, I believe that the barrage scheme of the Thames will be unnecessary if the channel for a third port is deepened; secondly, the reclamation of land in the Thames Estuary may very well help to pay for Foulness Airport.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has touched on two factors which are of importance. This is of course a national decision of considerable importance, and I am quite certain that if it were the wish of your Lordships' House that, in the light of the Government's decision, this matter should be further debated (we have already had a two-day debate) this could be worked out through the usual channels, unless they have become clogged in any way in the next few weeks.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in the hope of avoiding any suggestion of instant opposition, can I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that to many of us who have taken part in these debates it is indeed a very welcome decision, and will be widely welcomed throughout the country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity of acknowledging the considerable personal and beneficial part that he has played in this whole matter.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.8 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition who so ably introduced this Amendment. One of the most important steps that the Government will have to take on this Bill, as I see it, is to explain and define its terms. It is important to note that when in the other place the Minister of State, Mr. Carr, was asked material questions, he refused to answer. His only way out was to say that his right honourable friend in winding up the debate would deal with the legal points. But, strange to relate, there were, as I gather, no replies to that debate: and I have taken the opportunity, as no doubt your Lordships have, of reading it. This was brought out in the first day's debate on January 18, and is to be found in column 580 of Hansard of the other place.
We know that in your Lordships' House we are not graced with the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. In view of this, do I take it that the responsibility for answering questions on the legal aspects of the Bill will be left to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSITAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): If the noble Lord will allow me to answer, I am available to answer any legal questions, although I apprehend that there are none on this particular Amendment.
LORD SLATER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that noble Lords remember the reference I made during the course of my speech during the Second Reading of this Bill to the important matter of legal interpretation (OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/4/71, col. 175). One of the most important factors in industrial unrest in the past few years has been the frustration among working people at the delay in reaching settlements. Every time a delay occurs an employer is buying time at the expense of the workers or employees. It may be that some of the supporters of this Bill consider that negotiations are not responsibly conducted. That proves only too well how little they
946
know of trade union negotiations. I have yet to meet any leader going into the conference room in favour of irresponsible negotiation. Therefore, I believe that the word "responsibly", as set out in the Bill, is an insult to both sides of industry—the trade unions and the responsible employers. I have no doubt that if they were charged with irresponsibility they would be quick to deny it. The working people do not accept that the purpose of the Government is to make unions strong and free and strengthen trade union leadership because of the delay to which I have referred in reaching settlements.
In studying this clause I am left with the impression that the Government thought that they were producing something which meant that the principle of collective bargaining, freely and responsibly conducted, was coming into industrial relations for the first time. This country has led the world in the sphere of industrial relations One need look only at the problems of the past few months to see that the Government are conducting a discriminating incomes policy without coming to Parliament and getting any consent at all. During the course of the debate in the other place, the Minister made no bones about his belief that the rule should be written into the law of the land. That is what we laid down in our policies, which the Conservative Party condemned, and it is precisely what the present Government are not doing in this legislation. It is no secret that when an agreement was arrived at by the workers of the Electricity Council, and both sides were satisfied at the settlement, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, criticised the Chairman of the Council for making an agreement which was out of line with Government policy.
It is no use the Government pretending that they are not interfering with collective bargaining in any way. We know that they are, and one wonders why, knowing that collective bargaining has been with us for a very long time and has been freely arid responsibly conducted on a voluntary basis.
We are told by the Government that they do not object to collective bargaining, although they will not guarantee the results obtained from such bargaining. This is what the debate is about. The

947
Government have not the slightest intention of permitting without challenge bargaining which produces results that they do not like. I believe that their insistence on this Industrial Relations Bill will breed suspicion such as we have never seen before. If the Government were wise they would delete this particular clause, and allow those responsible for negotiations to get on with their job without fear of hindrance from any quarter.
The purpose of the Industrial Relations Bill is to curb wages. It has nothing to do with people being free, responsible and equal. It may be that there is a wages problem at the moment, but to suggest that what is intended here is not to curb wages is well out of line with reality. I sincerely hope that the Government, and the Minister responsible for presenting the Bill on behalf of the Government to your Lordships, will seek to accept the Amendment so ably presented by my noble Leader on this issue.
4.19 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I hope that we may have some assurance from the Government in connection with this first Amendment. The opening words of this particular clause read:
… for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations."
The interpretation of how these good industrial relations are going to be achieved is the subject of great difference between the two sides of the Committee. We suggest in our Amendment that it would be much better if we inserted the words:
"Orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis."
We are very reasonable in asking for this. Over the weekend certain Ministers have been paying tribute to the trade union movement in this country by saying, in effect, that some of our unions are the best in the world. That being so, surely it is reasonable to accept the words in this Amendment with a view to establishing good relations. These words should be accepted on the basis of the precedents of our trade union movement—that is, "on a voluntary basis". No evidence can be produced to show that when this nation has been in a critical condition the trade union movement has
948
not been prepared to sit down and talk and find reasonable ways out of the difficulty.
At the present time the nation has rather been stampeded by unofficial strikes and suchlike, which are being caused by certain militant actions. One sees the Government's readiness to deal with a situation of this kind by imposing on the trade union movement, by way of this Bill, certain restrictions before undertaking full, voluntary negotiations. To impose a measure of this description, without first establishing the good will of the collective organisation of workers, is action which does not leave a good impression; it does not establish a good jumping-off ground for whatever action should be taken. We all know that the situation is extremely difficult, but it should not be approached purely on the basis of what has been achieved by the organised power workers. Their achievements have been made only in the spirit of great opposition. The objective of the trade union movement is to increase the standards of life of people engaged in industry; and achievements in this direction have been made only by hard slogging, with the trade union movement itself accepting responsibility. Before we can talk of establishing good relations, the trade union movement as a whole must be consulted. The words of Government spokesmen, and ministerial utterances on several occasions, to the effect that we have unions which are among the best in the world ought to be acted upon by acceptance of the suggestion we make in this Amendment—by entry into voluntary arrangements.
We have for some time had these insurgents in industry. I, as an old trade unionist, strongly condemn any body of organised workers who do not honour a verbal agreement. Verbal agreements in our trade unions should be sacrosanct. They should be as sacrosanct as any written legal document can possibly be. But if every agreement has to be a legal document, it is going to bedevil relationships, and this will destroy good relations between management and workers. I think management themselves would be among the first to deplore it if all agreements had to be in the form of a written legal document. All kinds of snags would arise from the procedure. Therefore, I

949
sincerely hope that the Government will not be obdurate about this matter but will accept our Amendments. I agree that there is a big difference of principle between us. It is a code of procedure stipulating negotiations on both sides which is going to be so important if we want to obtain the best from both sides of industry. If we impose measures, may I humbly warn the Government that, in my opinion, instead of achieving action that will prevent inflationary tendencies I am afraid the Government will be storing up a legacy of difficulty which will not be in the best interest of the nation. So I hope the Government will accept our suggestion and will try to achieve a voluntary basis before this clause is passed.
4.27 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Shackleton because the words in the Amendment are clearly understood and are less ambiguous than the words in the clause. The Amendment refers to:
"orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis".
These words continue a tradition in collective bargaining which has stood the test of time for many years. This Committee would be well advised, for the sake of clarity, to accept this Amendment.
May I say this to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. I should like them to explain, in a much clearer fashion than is demonstrated in the Bill, what is meant by the word "responsibly". That word can mean all things to all people—one thing to one individual and something else to another person. The questions I should like to put to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government are these. To whom is the responsibility due? Responsible in what kind of way? Responsible for what? Can we read into this particular word in this clause that to act responsibly means acting in a certain way towards those who have authorised action? The meaning is unclear to me. The matter is very serious and I certainly should like to have a better explanation from the Government than the one which can be ascertained from the Bill. Does this word "responsibly" mean responsibility in negotiations to the community? If this word means all I
950
have suggested, then in different circumstances involving different people we may obtain different results. Does the word "responsibly" mean that those at the negotiating table should act with responsibility? Can we draw from that the inference that in the past negotiations have not been conducted in a responsible manner? I should like some indication from the Government in regard to the clarity and unambiguity of this clause. For those reasons I support the Amendment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I have listened carefully to this debate and I hope I can make a small but useful contribution to the cogent arguments already put forward by the Front Bench and my other noble friends who have spoken. In my view, there are aspects of this Amendment that have been missed, and it is important to reiterate for a moment what we are asking. We are asking that there shall be inserted the words
"orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis".
That is why, in a supplementary question the other day. I said to the noble Lord who was replying for the Government that in future the definition of a trade union will have to be changed because it can no longer be called a voluntary organisation.
Irrespective of the fact that one person has one idea of responsibility and another person has another idea, the words "freely" and "responsible" are very difficult to define; furthermore, when they are bandied about (as they will be) by a group of young lawyers who want to earn a living—and this will be a lawyers' paradise in the courts—the purpose of the Bill will be completely lost.
In the first place, the Bill will never work; secondly, it is the fact, as can be seen in a letter published in the Observer of November 29, 1970, to Mr. Victor Feather from Joe Meany, the head of A.F.L. and C.I.O. that Joe Meany believed the law on British trade unions had now gone further to the right than had the United States under the Taft-Hartley Acts. I happened to be in America talking and lecturing at the time of the Taft-Hartley Acts. It is rather sad that a powerful American trade union leader should comment that he considers that we in Britain have gone further to the right. Undoubtedly, part

951
of it is due to the introductory phraseology in Clause 1 of the Bill.
The Bill has four main objectives. First, it is hoped that the new legal bodies that it creates will deal with all the problems (with minor exceptions) of industrial relations. One of the first problems is to decide whether a thing is freely and responsibly conducted. That is an almost impossible task, as all religions throughout the world have proved. Second, how will the proposals change the day-to-day relations between the workers and the employers? Here is the rub! As I hope to prove in a moment or two, this phrase is of the utmost importance in day-to-day relationships between the workers and the employers.
Third, in its proposals the Bill affects the individual's rights of work. What is to happen at work when a strike is being discussed or is in process? And how does a worker act freely and responsibly at the bench or on the office stool, or wherever he may be? Fourth, the regulations in the Bill change the job of the trade union official. They change his status, his rights and also the relations between the workers and the unions. Once again there will arise the case of whether the trade union leader himself is acting freely and responsibly.
Later in the Bill there are proposals which make it an offence for anyone in a registered union, an unregistered union, a shop stewards' committee or an individual to organise or threaten a strike. If I were a member on a shop floor and I was discussing, even during the lunch time—as I know happened in a foundry in South Wales—whether the temperature was too high or too low, I should be covered by this Act. In that foundry in South Wales the temperature was 10 degrees below freezing point. The men were on vital work for a submarine and one man at the bench, who had to use calipers and compasses said, "We cannot work in this temperature; we cannot make accurate measurements. We will have a one day strike to bring the men to their senses". In such a case who will decide whether the man was acting freely and responsibly? I would say that he was so acting because he wanted to turn out first-class workman-
952
ship. In that particular case, if the plates had been wrongly made the submarine could have been placed in jeopardy. But by the time the lawyers had argued about this we should, as usual, be behind with export orders.
Then the National Industrial Relations Court would ultimately come in, because the Bill defines certain actions as being unfair industrial practices. If an employer or anyone else feels that he has been injured by any of these unfair industrial practices he can put his case before the National Industrial Relations Court or a tribunal. (Glory be to the Lord that this Government are going to keep the lawyers off the breadline while 800,000 other people are unemployed!) They will grant a remedy if it is proved to be an unfair industrial practice.
Further, we have to ask whether it is an unfair industrial practice to organise a strike for a particular purpose. Is it a breach of the procedure agreements? Is it unfair, and is it conducting oneself irresponsibly to take industrial action in support of a colleague? Is it unfair and acting irresponsibly, for instance—and I took the trouble to get some information on this—to call on colleagues to make a collection so that we can send one fellow to another part of the country and pay his third class fare? Incidentally, I notice this week that our fares have gone up 30s. or so, at a stroke. Is it illegal to "black" a firm? Yes, it is; and in this unfair practices clause we straightaway have the trade unions almost (to use a wrestling term, which used to be one of my sports years ago) in an Indian deathlock.
I do not want to use language that is too colourful and exaggerated, but I sincerely believe that when it comes to the sticking point, this Bill will not work. It was introduced when there was a phrenetic fear that had been created by propaganda. I will quote the Economist,which is supposed to be an erudite—
LORD BYERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Are we back on the Second Reading, because this Amendment is limited to collective bargaining freely carried out?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I do not know whether the noble Lord had legal training or not, but if he did he will

953
understand that there has not been a single syllable or comma in my speech which is out of order in another place, because it is directly related to what are considered free and responsible actions.
LORD BYERS: In collective bargaining.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Of course. A strike is an issue of collective bargaining.
LORD BYERS: Yes.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Then why is the noble Lord interrupting me? This is the amazing thing. Many noble Lords and people who do not go into this subject in depth do not know what they are talking about, or the implications of it. I have spoken long enough, because I promised not to be frivolous. I could go on quite easily, but that is not the point. I have tried to keep myself, as we would say in another place, in order, without irritating noble Lords, and to put the case fairly. As I have stated it, one can see that the breadth and depth of this phrase is almost unlimited, so far as accurate interpretation is concerned.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD): May I say something in 30 seconds? Noble Lords opposite appear to think that the voluntary basis between employers and unions is now always going to be legally enforceable, but the fact is that things will go on as before; probably 90 per cent. of agreements will still be completely voluntary agreements between employers arid unions. I have never personally known an agreement between employers and unions that was not voluntary. But what the Bill is trying to cure is what happens if the bargaining breaks down, if it is ineffective. It is only trying to cure that. It will be in the case of perhaps 5 per cent. of the agreements, if as much as that. We have had voluntary bargaining between unions and employers for the whole of the 20th century, at any rate since the Trade Disputes Act. We have seen how in the last few years we have fallen to the lowest productivity record among Western industrialised nations. Surely noble Lords opposite cannot object to this very mild word. You appear to object to the word "responsibly". I have always thought that
954
responsibility meant keeping your word and not making highly inflated demands.
EARL JELLICOE: I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend; with the burden of what he was saying in large part I agree. But I think we should be very careful how we conduct our debate, as it may be a longish one. My noble friend in addressing noble Lords opposite referred to them as "you". I hone we shall always remember that when we are addressing your Lordships' House on this or other matters we are addressing your Lordships as a whole.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Without any asperity, I believe I am entitled to reply.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I apologise to noble Lords opposite for calling them "you"; it was completely a slip of the tongue. I have finished.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Out of fairness, I am going to sit down in 30 seconds. If the noble Viscount is right in saying that everything is going to go on as before, why should we have the House of Commons and the House of Lords staying up all night? There is an ulterior motive in this Bill; let us face it.
4.44 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sure the whole House was glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is going to be so kind as to make himself available to give advice on what the meaning is of the very complicated context, as it is, in this very important Bill. If I may, in intervening for a short time, address my observations particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said was that I was available to answer legal questions, not the meaning of language.
LORD STOW HILL: In the course of my modest career at the Bar I had always been given to understand that the meaning of a word in a Statute in the context in which it was to be found was always recognised and described and dealt with as a point of law. One noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, a Lord of Appeal for whom we all have the greatest respect, is present. Perhaps he will disagree with

955
me, but I should be very much surprised if he did. The meaning of a Statute is a question of law, and I should have thought that we were entitled to expect from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in view of his very kind indication, that when we were discusing what a word in this particular context meant he would be prepared to treat it as a question of law and advise the House on it, giving advice not binding on any court, because he speaks as a Member of your Lordships' House not sitting on judicial business; but his advice would be very helpful and we always listen with great pleasure and elation to the magnificent speeches he makes.
We were rather disappointed to hear from him in an aside that he did not think that this particular Amendment raised a question of law. I venture to differ. The wording of Clause I taken as a whole is of great importance. It is true it is descriptive of purpose, but we are all agreed that the code of conduct we are most anxious to see in its first form as soon as possible is fundamental to this Bill. If one looks at Clause 2(1) one sees that the Secretary of State, in formulating that code, is to have regard to the purposes which are set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, and it is therefore important to us to know what it is that Clause 1 of the Bill is putting before the Secretary of State for him to have in mind when he formulates his code of conduct, which is so vital in our assessment of this Bill.
What the Amendment we are discussing now would achieve would be in substance the omission of the word "responsibly". It is obvious, from the speeches that have been made from this side of the House, that the reasoning behind that Amendment is anxiety as to precisely what is connoted by the term "responsibly" used in that context. The word "responsible" is again used in line 20. If one reads it in its context there it is perfectly obvious what it means: having an obligation of material importance to those who are concerned in the particular negotiations there referred to. There is no difficulty in interpreting it there. But the word "responsibly" in line 10 is used without any qualification, without any indication of what is meant. Unless I am very much mistaken, in ordinary parlance
956
the word "responsible" can have more than one significance. One can use it in a general, what I might call "good boy", sense. The nursemaid may say to her charge "act responsibly"; that means, act decorously, do not be silly, do not run about too much, do not cause too much nuisance. Sometimes one can use it of a grown-up, saying that he should act in a generally decorous manner, not go to excess, restrain himself. That is another meaning well recognised in the English language.
What my noble friends are rather suspicious about is that here it may go further than that. There is a third meaning one can attribute to it. One can use it as connoting that the person about whom the term is used is under some obligation to some other person or body of persons or to observe some criterion or standard. What my noble friends are asking—and I should have thought that this is precisely the kind of point of law on which we would value the advice of the noble and learned Lord —is whether, in his view, that third meaning is the one intended in this context. I see that he shakes his head. I hope he will give further consideration before he gets up—as I hope he will at some time during the course of the debate on this Amendment—to offer advice to the Committee. Does it mean responsible in the sense that there is an obligation to conform to certain standards? If so, what are those standards? Who is to lay them down? Is the word "responsible" to be understood as meaning that the standards are those to be laid down by the Secretary of State? Is he the person to formulate the criteria by which the word "responsible" is to be judged in that context? It is that sort of thing that noble Lords who have spoken from this side of the House are most anxious to know. There is an acute difference between the two sides, in this House and in another place, as to what are the proper criteria for the conduct of the affairs of this nation. This is a democracy, and there is sharp conflict between the two sides of the House. Which side of the House—if it is to be a side of the House—is to lay down what are to be the criteria to be observed in the construction of the word "responsible"?
The noble and learned Lord looks a little bored—I hope he is not, because I

957
really mean what I say. When I say that we would all value his advice I am perfectly sincere, because his advice is always extremely valuable. I hope that, his attention having been drawn to the fact that we are really anxious about precisely what is the function of that word "responsible" in that particular context, he will address his mind and give his impression as to the proper interpretation to be attributed to that word in this context.
As I have said, it is important that we should know, because the code of conduct which we are subsequently to see will presumably reflect what the Government intend that word in that context to have as its meaning. As we are very concerned about the form in which the code of conduct will appear, it is perfectly right and proper that the Opposition should put down an Amendment at this early stage to leave out that word of rather dubious connotation, which may lead to a form wholly unacceptable in the code of conduct when it subsequently emerges.
LORD BLYTON: May I—
EARL JELLICOE: Although I am not the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, perhaps it is appropriate that I should come in at this stage to explain the Government's point of view on this particular clause, and on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, it is probably useful to have a Government statement at this point, although a number of my noble friends will want to pursue this further. We shall regard it as very important that the noble and learned Lord who normally sits on the Woolsack—and who seems to be suffering so sitting on the Government Front Bench—should be prepared to answer my noble friend Lord Stow Hill at some stage. It may be that the noble Earl has some means of communicating with his noble and learned friend, and that we shall have some fascinating reply. Meanwhile, it probably is right that the noble Earl should speak. However, there is no doubt that my noble friend Lord Blyton, and others, will want to speak because I doubt whether the noble Earl will satisfy us.
4.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for making it possible for me to speak. Of course he did not see it, but may I say that his noble friend Lord Blyton had already made it possible for me to reply. Before I turn to the arguments which have been advanced—and perhaps I may say that they have been advanced very moderately, and for that reason all the more persuasively—by noble Lords opposite, I feel that I should first of all explain the intention behind the subsection we are now discussing.
The intention of the Government is to set out in this subsection as plainly as possible the principles which the Government see as basic to good industrial relations, and the principles which have informed the drafting of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that this matter was discussed fairly fully at Committee in another place. Like him, I have read the Committee discussion. I should have thought that 70 columns on a Committee point was rather more than "fairly fully"; I should have thought that that was "very fully". From the point of view of the tenor of our discussions over these coming days, I hope that we shall not necessarily go over all the ground which has been covered by the Committee in another place.
That said, the principle of Clause 1(1) is to state the Bill's aim in respect of collective bargaining. That aim is "freedom consistent with a sense of responsibility". We are aiming in this legislation at a balanced package fair to employees and fair to management. On one side of the balance there are the provisions about legally enforceable contracts and unfair industrial practices which aim to promote a due sense of responsibility. On the other side of the balance—and there is a real balance here—there is the freedom of collective bargaining, which is promoted by the provisions for trade union recognition, and by the very closely defined circumstances in which any third party, including the Government, can intervene, for example, in a national emergency. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved seeks to delete from this clause all reference to the concept of responsibility in this subsection, and surely we all recognise that a sense

959
of responsibility is now more than ever necessary in collective bargaining.
I must say straight away that I am not able to accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government. I feel it only right to make that clear, because I feel that there is a great deal more involved here—I think this discussion has probably shown that—than just semantics. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others, I think it right that I should seek to explain what we mean by "responsibility" in this context. First, we mean that collective bargaining should be conducted by those who are properly authorised to do so; in other words, by the officials who have been given this responsibility by managements and unions. To this end we have provided later in the Bill, at Clause 92, that when a strike is called by an official of a registered union who is authorised to do so by the union's rules, the resulting inducement to breach of contract will not constitute an unfair industrial practice. Even where a union official takes action which constitutes an unfair industrial practice, so long as the official has acted within the scope of his authority there will be no personal liability.
In these ways, the Bill seeks to ensure that collective bargaining is conducted by those who have the necessary mandate and the appropriate authority, and not by those who bear no real responsibility for what they may seek to do. That is one side of "responsibility". Secondly, we mean that those who engage in collective bargaining must bear some responsibility not just to themselves and those they represent but to the community as a whole. I really do not believe that there is anything sinister in this. It is not a denial of freedom; it is one of the means of achieving it. It seems axiomatic to me that in a free society in whatever capacity we act, we must accept that our freedom must be circumscribed in some measure in the interests of others and of the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that this phrase had an authoritarian ring about it. I really wonder whether that is so. Surely our whole concept of democracy is based upon this balance between freedom and responsibility. I do not wish to preach a sermon about this, but surely all your Lordships must
960
admit that with all of us in all aspects of our lives our freedom is circumscribed in this way. For example, our freedom in our private lives is circumscribed by the interests of others and of the community. Our perfect freedom in your Lordships' House is circumscribed by our knowledge—and I suspect that we may have to draw on that knowledge a bit in the weeks to come—that we could have perfect anarchy in this House, were it not for consideration of others and of the House as a whole. Furthermore, to take the subject wider, our freedom as a nation is circumscribed by the interests of other nations and of the world community.
I recognise that in the context of this Bill that may not be a principle which noble Lords opposite will necessarily be prepared to concede, but they undoubtedly acted upon that principle when they were in Government. It was surely the thought behind In Place of Strife and the Prices and Incomes Act. They were not measures with which we necessarily agreed, but we did not quarrel with the notion that certainly animated them; that the process of collective bargaining and the settlements which result from it are of concern not only to the direct participants in the bargaining, but also in some measure—sometimes very directly—to the nation as a whole. I do not see how this can be denied when we look at some of the big bargains which have been struck in recent times—be it Ford or others in the motor industry, in the electricity industry or elsewhere. In this respect the Bill does not break new ground. What it does is to define more precisely than is done at present the legal conditions which govern collective bargaining, and to write into the law those limitations which must, in the interest of us all, be placed on the freedom of the negotiators.
I think our discussions this afternoon have pointed to one dilemma, and that is that when we try to make—as we are trying to make in this first clause of the Bill—some fundamental statements of principle, it is very hard to employ terms which cannot possibly be construed in more than one sense. This may apply to the terms which we have introduced into the Bill. I think it applies also to the terms of the Opposition's Amendment. Put let me say that the words which

961
noble Lords opposite appear to object to seem to me perfectly clear and unambiguous, and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, suggested, the precise opposite. "Responsibly" has a perfectly clear dictionary definition. One can see what it means by a moment's reflection on its opposite, the word "irresponsibly". That is the sense in which it is used here. I cannot accept—and I find it very hard that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, put it in this way—that by importing these words into the Bill there is in any sense a slander upon or injustice to the trade unions. I cannot see why he should think that the use of the word "responsibly"should mean that. To adopt his own line of argument, words such as "voluntary" or "democratically" would be just as much a slur on the trade unions.
LORD SLATER: Will the noble Earl not agree that by introducing this type of argument he is issuing a form of challenge to the intelligence of the people who, over the years, have responsibly carried out negotiations on behalf of their members?
EARL JELLICOE: I really do not think so—no more than that to introduce the word "democratically" would be to challenge the fact that there is a movement towards more democratic trade unionism. I really cannot accept the noble Lord's argument here. That said, it is my belief that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has moved is as superfluous as it is misconceived. Take, for example, the phrase "on a voluntary basis" which is in his Amendment. I am advised that the phrase could certainly be held to imply that Government and the law should withdraw entirely from the sphere of collective bargaining, and that would have some very interesting and highly undesirable implications. It could, for example, imply the repeal of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, together with other legislation which exists to protect workers from exploitation. The result of totally unregulated bargaining is easy to predict. It is a situation—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? How on earth can he suggest that this can have any bearing whatsoever on the Contracts of
962
Employment Act? I do not know where the noble Earl is getting his advice. Those of us who worked on that Bill—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will agree—believe that collective bargaining has nothing at all to do with contracts.
EARL JELLICOE: That Act lays down certain conditions by which, as the noble Lord well knows, the employer must abide; for example, there is the period of notice. If the words "on a voluntary basis" were taken literally, they would mean taking out of the area of statutory control and bringing into the area of voluntary collective bargaining all that part which is covered by this legislation. The noble Lord may query that, but that is certainly my advice and I have not imparted or forwarded that advice without due consideration. What we envisage is a system of law which should govern collective bargaining, but also a system of law within which employers and trade unions bargain freely and responsibly. I would readily concede—and here I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard—that voluntary procedures here, as elsewhere, are in normal circumstances much to be preferred to any others. Nevertheless, there are circumstances, notably where procedure agreements may be defective or non-existent, in which we may have to look to other procedures, and they are provided for by the clauses in Part III of the Bill which deal with the selective enforceability of procedure agreements. If the Opposition's Amendment carries the implication that voluntary procedures are in all circumstances to be preferred to any others, then I must say straight away that that is a notion which we would reject. Those are the reasons why, if the noble Lord presses this Amendment, I shall urge your Lordships to resist it.
I would say straight away, at the outset of what is going to be a long discussion, that for many reasons I should have been very prepared, if I could, to accept an Amendment of this sort. I looked at this Amendment with particular care because I had that in mind, if only for tactical considerations. Maybe I am being too frank with your Lordships. But in resisting this Amendment, and since we are at the outset of our discussion, may I congratulate noble Lords opposite—and I hope I do not

963
appear pompous or sanctimonious—on the way in which they have moved and supported this Amendment, the first swallow in what looks to-day like being a long, cold summer. I hope that the time will come, before too many weeks and too many late nights have passed, when I shall be able to congratulate the noble Lord opposite on moving his last Amendment. That said, I should very much like at the outset of our Committee stage to express the hope that, despite the divisions or clashes of opinion which we may have on this Bill—and I know that opinions are not only strongly held, but maybe even more strongly expressed at times—we shall be able to continue our discussion on this important legislation in the sort of spirit which has informed our discussion this afternoon.
LORD BLYTON: The noble Earl said that the purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to promote a basis of good labour relations. We fundamentally disagree with him on that. We think the guiding principles of this Bill will cause more chaos and more unrest than they will solve. The noble Earl referred to community responsibility in relation to wages negotiations. I hope I shall have something to say about that before I have finished my few remarks. It must be understood that Clause 1 contains the guiding principles setting out the objects of this Bill which are to be regarded as the principles for persons and institutions who will operate this Bill, including the N. I. R. C. In supporting the Amendment, I must say that the Minister knows that the courts will have to interpret this measure. We must have a clear definition of its terms, but we got no definition to-day from the noble Earl the Leader of the House who has just sat down.
This Amendment cuts out the word "responsibly". The Bill raises the question, as Lord Taylor put it: who are the trade unions to be responsible to? Are they to be responsible to their members? And responsible for what? Does it mean responsible to the trade union which authorised them to act, to the other bargaining party, to the Government or to the community generally? Each of these meanings would give different results. In the debate in another place, Mrs. Castle gave one view, Mr. Paget another, Mr. Gower another and the Secretary of State
964
another. Legal authorities like Professor Wedderburn, a professor of industrial law who specialises in this field, say that in this Bill there is being introduced a legal straitjacket in the form of provisions designed to reduce the bargaining power of the trade union movement, and I think the Government must address themselves to that charge. That is why we regard the word "voluntary" not as merely academic.
A man like George Woodcock, who has great experience in the trade union field, could not stomach this Bill and got out, but he has always said that what makes the trade union movement work effectively is its voluntary nature. I cannot understand at all why we have this wording unless there is something sinister about it, and that is what we believe. When I read the debate in another place and how the Secretary of State tried to explain it, I thought he conveyed the idea that this was something new coming into our industrial relations for the first time; and I thought the noble Earl the Leader of the House tried to convey the same view. Since when has the principle of "freely and responsibly conducted" trade union negotiations not been followed; and is this not a device in the long run to destroy the shop stewards? If this is the case, then it will be a bad day for British industry. The employers have learned to work with the shop stewards in many industries, and are doing a good job to maintain and improve industrial relations. Whatever many noble Lords opposite may think in their anti-trade union attitude, they must know that the British trade union movement has led the world in the realm of industrial relations.
There have been some Conservatives who have contrasted this Bill with Labour's prices and incomes policy. I was never too happy about that as it seemed to control wages rather than prices; but in fairness it must be said that at least they got the consent of both Houses of Parliament for that wages policy. But here to-day we have a Government conducting a most discriminatory policy on incomes without coming to the House at all and getting consent for that kind of policy—and that is what is involved in the Amendment we are dealing with to-day. The

965
Tories say that the rules for trade unions should be proclaimed in the law of the land. That is what we did in our policies on prices and incomes, and the Tories attacked us right and left. On incomes, the present Government have a policy of interference in the wages field, but are not doing it by way of legislation. What they say is, "Where there is a dispute involving lower-paid workers, particularly in the public sector, we will appoint a High Court judge, with over £15,000 a year, to pass judgment on workers about whom he knows nothing from practical experience".
The Government are operating an incomes policy, though they told the electorate they were not in favour of one. The Government have allowed large increases in judges' salaries and solicitors to put up their fees, and increases in air pilots' wages, while at the same time, not being able to control wages in the private sector, people in the public sector like the railway workers and the Post Office workers are beaten down to 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. We now have a double standard, and that it what we are worried about in this particular part of the Bill. The Government pick out the poorest section and say, "If we can hold back that section and make an example of it we shall be able to hold back the level of wage claims"; and we are invited to ignore the increases for professional people, increased dividends and profits. That is the double standard of to-day that we envisage in this Bill.
There have been many cases over the years when Tory Governments have gone to great lengths, after collective bargaining has produced a result, 10 interfere with the result which has been achieved between employers and trade unions. As Lord Slater has said, this was done by Mr. Harold Macmillan in 1961 with the power workers; it was done with the nurses; and it has been done in another way with Jack Scamp and Professor Clegg. In the light of this, it must be understood that we are very suspicious of the general principles laid down in the Bill. This interference was carried out when collective bargaining was freely and responsibly being conducted. Why do we argue about something that has been going on for over 70 years? It is because the Government's reasons are
966
different from the words in Clause 1(1)(a). They do not object to collective bargaining under the rules in their Bill, but what they will not guarantee is that the results of collective bargaining responsibly conducted will be allowed to stand—and that is the kernel of the case to-day.
Will all negotiations in arbitrations or conciliations always have to take into consideration the national interest, with the Government using all their forces behind them to influence arbitrators, as they did in the power case when the Treasury, on behalf of the Government, tried to load the dice against the workers? What has happened to Jack Scamp and Professor Clegg does not augur well for lower-paid people. When the Labour Government asked both Houses for power to defer an increase in wages, we were told by the Tories that we had no right to do so, regardless of the national interest; and in another place the Tory votes are on record. They did this on the ground that trade unions could not negotiate freely. That is what the Tories are now doing, and introducing. They exploited our incomes and prices policy, which was unpopular. They were able to get more political popularity on the strength of attacking that policy, and they did it very unfairly. Even during the General Election they attacked Labour for refusing to give the doctors the whole amount of the award at once, and got a few miserable votes by it. Even in policy the Tories are talking double-talk.
It was the Prime Minister who said on Thames Television on April 30, 1970, in the context of wages negotiations,
"I think you are being unfair to the unions in saying that price explosion under Labour is due to wage explosions. You cannot blame workers for asking for wage increases".
I do not object to that, but the Government to-day had another tune to play. In the power men's case before the Wilberforce Committee, a report in The Times said that the Treasury had submitted the following evidence, and we want to know what is going to happen to us under this principle:
"The Treasury Memorandum submitted to the Court of Inquiry into the electrical pay dispute argues that the current inflationary spiral can only he broken by reducing the level of wage settlements"
They produced this evidence on the basis I of "national interests". Are the words

967
"only be broken", what the Government mean by "collective bargaining" and ""responsibly conducted" in this clause? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly saying that the level of wage settlements is the only cause of inflation. To him prices have nothing to do with it, nor taxation policies nor increases in social welfare charges.
We are seeking to amend this clause because the Government are riding two horses. I believe that the Government will define the word "responsibly" in a way that will increase strikes and the threat of strikes. There will not be collective bargaining freely in the public sector. The Government should recognise that a big change has taken place in the trade union movement. Power has been given to the shop floor more so than in the past and this Bill is no doubt intended to kill the shop stewards or make them ineffective. National or industry-wide negotiations have in practice now become less important. The Donovan Commission saw this, and the failure of the institutions concerned to adapt to it, as the key to much industrial unrest in strike prone industries. The Tory Bill entirely ignores this development which is not confined to this country, yet to attempt, as the Bill does, to reverse this movement, will surely spell trouble, both in terms of industrial peace and in terms of preventing the development of improved methods of using manpower.
The word "responsibly" means what people want it to mean, and I suspect that that is what the Government want. They want it to mean what they want it to mean. It is one thing to make an agreement with an employer and to conduct oneself in the spirit and intention of an agreement, but it is different when it is converted into Statutes. The courts will say, "We are concerned not with the spirit and the intention, but with the law." Judges often tell us that it does not matter what Parliament said or intended; they have to decide the law. It is because of all these things, and because it frames the principles of the Bill, that it is necessary to define "responsibly", especially in the light of all that follows in the Bill. The trades unions are responsible bodies, and always have been so, but in the light of the Tory "trade union bashing" it is vital
968
to know how they define this subsection. Knowing the contents of this Bill with all its legal sanctions and penalties on the trade unions, it is essential that the principles which guide the Bill should be fully explained to the House as to how collective bargaining can be freeely and responsibly done with all the disabilities which they will face under this Bill. It is to maintain the voluntary basis of the unions that I support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was passing to the Leader of the Opposition a note to explain my position, but perhaps this is a convenient moment to do so. I have in fact been suddenly summoned elsewhere for a short time, but I hope to be back shortly. The only advice I can give to the House is that there is no possible legal point here. The courts would, in my opinion, interpret the word "responsibly" in its dictionary sense—in the sense in which it was used so capably by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, on several occasions in his two interventions—and that meaning has been correctly and exhaustively and plainly explained by the Leader of the House. That is the only advice I can give on this clause. There is no legal point that I can see which could conceivably arise.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has been most helpful. We can continue the debate after he has gone. This is a matter that has obviously caused a great deal of interest, and a number of lawyers have taken this view and my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has expressed his view. I take it that the principles as contained in this clause are those that will be taken into account by the courts. He is saying that this comes under subsection (2)(b), as well as under (2)(a). In talking about the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Court he is stating categorically that the meaning is as stated by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; that there is no possibility of any ambiguity. He is quite satisfied that the courts will not give the sort of meaning which other people are afraid that it might have. Obviously, in a sense, he cannot answer what the courts will do; nevertheless he is convinced in his position that the only meaning this phrase can bear is the one

969
Which has been given to it by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the Leader of the Opposition has correctly stated what my opinion is. Of course the courts are constantly using ordinary language, and I cannot think, out of my stock of legal knowledge, of any sense which I can attach to the words "responsible", "responsibility", "responsibly" in this context which is not that which my noble friend has already given. The dictionary meaning, I notice from this large volume which I have in front of me, which is most likely to be applied is "morally accountable for one's actions", and the example given is:
"the great God has treated us as responsible beings"
EARL BATHURST: Is it not true that there are two sorts of responsibilities? I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill and his noble friend have not got a point. Surely you are responsible to somebody. On one side, if you are an officer you are responsible to your commanding officer; if you are a managing director, you are responsible to your shareholders; if you are a trade union shop steward—and this is perhaps where the difficulty is—you are responsible to whom? I suppose the secretary or the officials of the union. The other sort of responsibility is where you are responsible for something or somebody. An officer is responsible for his men; the managing director is responsible for the progress of his factory and its work; the trade union shop steward or the trade union leader is responsible, quite obviously, for the interest and welfare of his men who are members of that union. But can that trade union leader or shop steward be responsible both to and for the same people? I wonder whether "responsibly conducted" is the right way of using "responsibly" in this particular line.
When we come to the next paragraph, paragraph (b), we see that it uses the words:
"with due regard to the general interests of the community".
Cannot this responsibility—both the "to" and the "for"—be shown in some way? If the noble Earl the Leader of the House, or his colleague the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, could
970
help noble Lords opposite with these two different types of responsibility, perhaps their fears arid the fears of many people in the country, and in particular the fears of the trade unionists, would quickly disappear and this very long, marathon debate might be considerably shortened. I wonder if it is worth looking at "responsibly conducted".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I endeavoured to give my opinion, as I was invited to do so. I can only repeat what I have said. I think that my noble friend has himself given the answer to his question. Obviously, in certain contexts the word "responsible" is used in conjunction with "to" and "for"; but it is not so used in this sentence. I can only repeat that in my opinion, for what it is worth—and it was only my opinion that was asked for, not somebody else's—the courts would interpret it in the sense in which my noble friend the Leader of the House gave it and in no other. There is no other possibility when it is used in this context. But I am not infallible. I gave my opinion only because it was asked for.
5.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I think there is general agreement in the Committee that this clause is the crux of the whole Bill. We are here deciding the principles of industrial relations, and even in the principles as set out in the Bill it is obvious that there is considerable disagreement in all parts of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, honestly expressed his doubts and we shall come again and again in the course of our discussions to doubts of this kind. What do the words mean? Having heard the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I am afraid that the answer we shall get is that they mean what he says they mean. This is what is disturbing not only trade unions but also the greater part of the people of this country. If we are adumbrating principles, if we are deciding principles on which the whole Bill will depend, then not only have we to get them right but we have to get them short. It is almost as if we were deciding on a new set of Commandments. They would have to be brief and to the point; and they ought to be the subject of general agreement, something that could be put in a Preamble to the Bill.

971
Let us take the one we are now discussing: the principle of collective bargaining. What we are concerned about is that the Government add the words, "freely and responsibly conducted"—in a matter where for a hundred years collective bargaining has been freely and responsibly conducted without any laws, without any compulsion. One of the Ten Commandments is: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." It does not say "…except with the agreement of your wife freely and responsibly conducted."
The essence of what I am seeking is simplicity; so that everybody knows what the principle means, so that we do not need to have a discussion such as this which has lasted for about an hour, a three-cornered discussion between my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, a former Home Secretary and an eminent lawyer whose opinions on these matters ranks very high, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. And at the end of that hour's discussion we had the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, coming in and expressing his puzzlement and suggesting yet another solution. This is not the way to conduct our affairs over one of the most important Bills we have ever had to decide.
When I read Part I of the Bill I was inclined to think that it was possible to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, to judge them by their intentions as they have expressed them. But my noble friend Lord Blyton rightly said that any legal action arising from this Bill when it becomes an Act will not be decided by the Government's intentions as expressed in Ministerial statements but by the letter of the law. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in attempting to justify the words, "bargaining freely and responsibly conducted" appeared to me to underline and confirm all the fears that have been expressed on this side, fears which have been expressed continuously throughout the discussion in the Bill. It is of no use, in endeavouring to reassure people who are seriously disturbed about prospective legislation, to say, "Our words do not mean what you think they mean." Indeed, they will mean what responsible people who have to administer the law decide they mean.
972
It is therefore right that we should spend all this time discussing the exact wording of this very small section. We cannot get over the use of the words "responsibly conducted" by sophistries. It is a very real question, one that has not yet been answered but one that must be answered. Who decides what is "responsible"? —and remember that we are talking about people who for scores of years have been considered responsible. In our view, the alternative words,
"orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis"
underline correctly and properly what this paragraph should mean. I am not an expert on these matters, as your Lordships will already have gathered. My only knowledge of industrial relations is that gained over some 40 years as an employer. I have conducted industrial relations, and have also done so on behalf on an employers' organisation. My feeling is that this whole concept is utterly wrong. I have never found any necessity to put down any words and to argue: "This is the law by which you must abide. "My industrial relations have not been entirely without success, because they have been in an industry which has never had a strike or lost a day's work in 40 years. Real industrial relations do not depend on matters of this kind.
I am convinced that those noble Lords sitting behind the Government Front Bench who have listened to these discussions have become increasingly uneasy about the words which are being used; about the methods which are being employed. I respect the opinions of noble Lords opposite, but if they support the Government on this Amendment, I do not think that they can do so with a clear conscience. The noble Earl has said that he cannot accept this Amendment. I hope that he will look at it again. He asured us that, as a matter of tactics, he had toyed with the idea of giving. us a "sweetener" by accepting the Amendment, so as to give us the right impression from the word go. I am glad that the noble Earl finally decided to eschew that method of progress, which would not have been worthy of him.
EARL JELLICOE: I must intervene, although I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I think that he is

973
being a little unfair. Surely what I said was perfectly clear. If, at the outset of a very long discussion, I had felt able to accept this Amendment, I would obviously have wished to do so. This does not seem to me in any way immoral, or overtactical, or anything else; and I think that the noble Lord is making very heavy weather of it.
LORD STONHAM: I have no wish to be unfair to the noble Earl or to misrepresent him. I have never tried to misrepresent anyone. But that was the impression that he gave to me. He used the word "tactical". If he consults Hansard in the morning he will find that what I said fairly represented. I think, what he had to say. He said, "Perhaps I have spoken too frankly"—but I will leave noble Lords who heard the discussion to decide. In any case, the noble Earl indicated that he had considered accepting the Amendment and that it might be tactically desirable to do so. Whether or not it would have been good tactics, it would not have been in accordance with his usual practice. But the Government cannot "kid" us in that way—accepting one Amendment and thinking that it would be all right over the other 300. The very fact that he toyed with this idea—
LORD BROWN: I wonder whether my noble friend would excuse my interrupting him. I know of no way more conducive to getting a Minister—who has obviously been giving thought to accepting an Amendment—not to accept an Amendment than to criticise the basis on which he has spoken of his thoughts. I think that we are being unfair about it. I still hope that the Government will accept this Amendment which is important; but, with great respect to my noble friend, I do not think that he is improving the chances of the Government reconsidering their current attitude by speaking in this way.
LORD STONHAM: I think that this is a very good Amendment and a very considerable improvement on the words in the Bill. It would make a first principle that we need not be ashamed of. I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider, and will accept the Amendment.
5.45 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in one respect: that this clause is one of the most vital in the Bill, and is one of the most essential parts of the Bill. But I cannot go along with him in his belief that the amount of time we are spending on the detailed wording, and the amount we seem likely to spend on it (and the amount of time which was spent in another place), is really worth while. Although there are one or two among the Amendments put forward by his noble friends which seem to me worth supporting, they do not seem to me to be of very great intrinsic importance.
As it stands, the clause seems to me a perfectly sensible and straightforward declaration of intent which should claim the respect of any independent person who had not already been immersed in the rather murky psychology which is going into this particular debate at the moment. I think we must not be frightened of words. If I may take an example which is slightly off the point, I would refer to law and order. I am in favour of law and order, and the fact that some Right-Wing people misuse it in an authoritarian way, and that therefore some Left-Wing people refuse to use them and regard law and order as "dirty" words—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He referred to some Right-Wing people"—I am sorry; he was going on to refer to his Young Liberals, was he? I beg his pardon.
LORD BYERS: Why not?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Why not indeed! Some Left-Wing people, therefore, regard law and order as "dirty" words and will not use them. I do not think that this should put people off—it certainly will not with me—regarding law and order as a very good thing which we should have. Responsibility is also a very good thing that we should have. For the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to say that "responsibility" has an authoritarian tone seems as surprising to me as it does to the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: Prefectorial.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Prefectorial it may be, but really nothing to run away from. Nor do I accept that to put in the first clause of this Bill words as to what should happen in industrial relations is to imply that these words have not been applicable to practice in the past. That again seems to me to be oversensitive and not looking at the clause as it is written down. Responsibly, as was said by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, is understood by the Government in two ways: in the sense that the people conducting the negotiations have been responsibly elected or appointed representatives of their various bodies, and responsible to the community.
The Liberal Party has always strongly upheld the idea of responsibility to the community as part of the industrial network. Indeed, a distinguished Liberal, Mr. George Goyder, has written a book called The Responsible Company, which takes up this particular point: bringing in the idea of employees having a share of management, but also bringing in the idea that any industrial organisation must be responsible to the community as well as to just its own self. If I thought that "responsibly" would be interpreted by any independent body as meaning the kind of behaviour which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has so rightly castigated—that of holding down the pay of the really poorly paid workers while letting the pay of others rip—I would be against the use of the word. But responsibly means what it says; that is, responsible by any standards. I am for responsibility. And therefore I shall certainly support the Government, and I shall advise my noble friends to do the same.
LORD PARGITER: There is one point that I should like to make. It is on the question of what is compulsory and what is freely conducted. All law is compulsory—let us be clear about that. If it is a law, it is compulsory. If it is free, it is free. You cannot marry the two together. You cannot have the one and the other; you have to have one or the other. In so far as the Government require that it shall be reasonably conducted and not on a voluntary basis, it embraces the rule of law. I am not arguing whether or not there should be a rule of law. But the answer is that it should be freely conducted, and still there should be the rule of law. But
976
we cannot have it both ways. The Government have decided that they want it one way: that negotiations should be freely and reasonably conducted, but on the rule of law. I am not arguing it either way. But if the Government really want that they must of necessity accept the Amendment, because otherwise negotiations are no longer on a voluntary basis. The ultimate is a basis of the rule of law and it can be arrived at in the last analysis only by the law. If the Government do not want that, then for Heaven's sake! why do they not say so, instead of all this claptrap and nonsense about it being a voluntary basis?
I can imagine all sorts of circumstances in which voluntary agreements could be arrived at but which would necessarily be against the law. They are voluntarily arrived at, but one might say that they have not been arrived at in accordance with the principles involved here and therefore they ought not to be operative. If we are going to argue in favour of shop floor bargaining it would be a very difficult problem to apply these principles from the point of view of being freely and responsibly conducted. If they are freely and responsibly conducted within the basis of a voluntary arrangement, that is all right, because after all it has no force in law but as soon as we begin to apply the force of law to it, we immediately take away the voluntary basis. We cannot have one and the other at the same time. The Government have made up their minds they want the one. We think that the other is the appropriate way—the voluntary way of arriving at an agreement. The way people come to an agreement has nothing to do with the Government at all. And that is where I should like to leave it.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this late stage in the discussion—at least, I hope it is a late stage—but I am worried about the words in the clause as it stands. I admit freely that I started off thinking that there was little difference between the Amendment and the clause as it stands, but the more I have listened to the discussion, the more I am worried about the clause. I want to refer particularly to the words "negotiations responsibly conducted". Who is to judge whether negotiations are responsibly conducted? Let me take, for

977
example, a trade union leader who enters a discussion and says, "These are my terms; take them or leave them". Is that responsible conduct of a negotiation? If it is not, is he committing a breach of this provision? Or suppose that a trade union leader enters into a negotialion and says, "I want an increase of 200 per cent. on the present wage and I am not prepared to come clown on that". Is he responsible, and can he be hauled up for it?
I would have thought that these difficulties could be avoided by not using this expression at all. Whether we use the term of the Amendment is another matter. But surely the sensible way in a matter of this kind, where we are all trying to get the best possible words in this provision, would be to think about them again in the light of this discussion and see whether there can be inserted in the clause words which would not be open to the objections which so many of my noble friends on this side feel, and always will feel. I have no doubt that we could find a form of words which would do what noble Lords opposite want and what we want. I suggest that it might be worth while for the noble Earl the Leader of the House to say he will give further consideration to these words and to the Amendment at a later stage.
5.57 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Earl the Leader of the House deployed his objection to the Amendment with characteristic moderation. Indeed, I find myself in some difficulty because of the entertaining and delightful method of persuasion adopted by the noble Earl. Therefore, I hope he will forgive me if I venture to cross swords with him. It would seem a somewhat futile exercise to engage for a long period of time in discussing a particular word—in this connection the word "responsibly"—but we have to ask ourselves: For what reason was that word inserted in this paragraph of the clause? The noble Earl seemed to me to inject something in the nature of philosophy into the case. But there was no reason for this at all, because in so far as philosophy can be integrated with a set of principles—and I suppose that is a reasonable interpretation of the term "philosophy" and of the term "set of principles"—all he asked for, and indeed all the Government seem to request
978
from the trade unions or the employers organisations (as the case may be) in the process of negotiations is contained in the next paragraph of this subsection of Clause 1, which says:
"the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful and expeditious settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration, with due regard to the interests of the community."
I ventured to read that paragraph because much of the argument we have heard in the course of the debate this afternoon, and indeed much of the prolonged argument that took place at the end of the corridor in another place, dealt principally with the points embodied in that paragraph to which I have drawn attention.
Let me explain. When questions were asked by Members on the Opposition Benches as to the interpretation of the word under discussion, the answers, some evasive, some ambiguous and some vague, but some occasionally with some measure of relevance, indicated the following: that the Government were concerned, and rightly concerned, that in negotiations the interests of the community, while not paramount, should be predominant in the consideration. After all, that is what one would expect from any Government. It is true that that argument was countered by some of the legal fraternity in another place, on the ground that the representatives of the trade unions or indeed the F. B. I., an employers' organisation, were bound in the circumstances, within their responsibility and discretion, to represent their constituents without regard to the interests of the community. There is something to be said for that point of view. After all, if one is engaged in negotiations on a matter of wages or conditions, one must represent the interests of one's constituents without regard to extraneous affairs. I would reject that, but it is a point of view. But the concept of regard to the interests of the community is contained in the paragraph to which I have directed attention. If that is accepted, then there can be no denial; and here it is. Then I think I am justified in asking the question: why insert the word "responsibly" in the previous paragraph? There must be some reason for it. It cannot be in order to concern those engaged in negotiation with the interests of the community, because that is in the next paragraph, and there

979
is no reason for repetition. The Government have all they want.
Then there is something more. When there was a discussion in the other place there was a varying interpretation of what is meant by the word under discussion; and to some extent that has happened here this afternoon. Some speakers have suggested that it means that negotiations must be conducted in an orderly fashion; that that represents responsibility on the part of those engaged in negotiations. But again I direct noble Lords' attention to the next paragraph, to which I have already referred, because there are to be found the words—and perhaps I should read them again:
"the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry …"
So the Government not only have the interests of the community tied up beyond doubt in the paragraph to which I have referred, but they also have "orderly", which could be interpreted as "responsibly".
It may be suggested that what I have said is embodied in the paragraph could be amended. But there is a remarkable fact that cannot be disregarded; namely (and, so far, none of my noble friends on this side, certainly no noble Lord on the other side, and not even the noble Earl the Leader of the House, has paid attention to this), that in this respect paragraph (b), to which I have referred, is not the subject of any Amendment. Why is this? It is true, as my noble friend sitting beside me says, that there is an Amendment which refers to "association". But I repeat that the word "orderly" is not to be amended. Nobody is asking for that. So the Government have all that they want. I wonder, therefore, why they want the word "responsibly" in the first paragraph. What can possibly be the purpose of it?
This would tempt one to engage in a Second Reading speech—and I have heard some this afternoon. It might be possible to argue at some length when we come to the Question, That the clause stand part, but at the present time we are dealing exclusively (anyway, I think we are, apart from the speech delivered by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, who introduced a great deal of extraneous matter, and the attempts
980
made by some of my noble friends to do precisely the same) with the Amendment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHINWELL: That is precisely what I am doing. It is true that I have referred to paragraph (b), but I had to do that in order to deploy my argument. I am anxious to avoid repetition—I am not in the mood for it, and I do not suppose anybody else is, because we shall have plenty of it before we are finished with this Bill—and I address myself again, not to my noble friends, who are converted (even if they do not accept what I say, they are converted; they are against the Government), to noble Lords on the opposite Benches. I want to help the Government out of a dilemma which they have created for themselves: they are likely to be impaled on their own horns, if I may indulge in a cliché which can be well understood.
I put the point again, and I ask noble Lords on the opposite Benches, before they come to a decision on this matter and seek to reject the Amendment—and I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House particularly to address himself to this point: What is it that the Government want? They want to ensure that in the process of negotiations everything should be conducted in an orderly fashion. They have it set out in paragraph (b). They want to ensure that in the process of negotiations as between responsible employers (and there are such) and responsible trade union leaders (and there are many) the interests of the community should not be disregarded. I accept both of those things: orderly discussion freely conducted—nobody is arguing against that; it is agreed on both sides; the interests of the community, which is what we want the Government have already. Therefore I would ask noble Lords on the opposite Benches, having taken note of that—unless my arguments can be disposed of and rejected—to try to bring (I am not sure that I should use this term, but I cannot think of any other in my impoverished state of mind, so far as language is concerned) persuasion (I was about to say pressure, but I do not want to be offensive or abrasive in any way) to bear upon the noble Earl.

981
I know that it may be difficult. There have been long debates in the other place on this issue. All kinds of arguments have been deployed. The Minister has replied; and not only the Minister, but the legal luminary, the Solicitor General. Sometimes he was a little confused in his mind, but that does sometimes happen to people associated with the legal profession. I hope they will forgive me for saying that; I have no other objection to them. I can understand that when a decision has been reached in the other place there is a reluctance in your Lordships' House to change it. Indeed, I was reminded of this, not by noble Lords on the opposite Benches but by my noble friends on this side before we came to the Second Reading, in which, due to circumstances out of my control, I was unable to take part. I discovered that my noble friends here thought that when a decision has been reached in the other place it is quite improper, injudicious, not to say unwise, to seem to flout it. We are engaged now for what reason? We are trying to improve the Bill. That is our task. I want to help to improve the Bill.
I am not going to deploy all the arguments used about the difficulties, or to indulge in forecasts or astrology about the future, about the situation in which the country will find itself when this Bill is implemented—if it ever is. Astrologists do not count for much nowadays: nearly all the forecasts, even the weather forecasts, are never accurately implemented. The Leader of the House might, for the moment, tell your Lordships that he has not fully made up his mind but has listened patiently, earnestly and sincerely to the arguments. As I have said, he will reply entertainingly and delightfully but I hope that, having heard what I have had to say (I say that with characteristic modesty), and directed his attention to paragraph (b), which gives him all he wants, and the Government all they want, he will ask us to leave the matter in his hands and give it due consideration.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I add three sentences in support of this Amendment? We on this side object to the political implications behind this word "responsibly". As there has been no legal definition, we think about the political implication. May I give noble
982
Lords an example of what I mean? There has recently been a tragic case of a child mauled by two guard dogs. How we judge this tragic accident could reveal different attitudes in us. Some people might pin the responsibility on the owners of the property; some people might pin the responsibility on the community. Some other people in the community might feel that there was a need to guard the property because of the prevalence of theft. Others might say that we put far more stress on property than on the danger to human life. The word "responsibility" can he applied and interpreted in many different ways. It means one thing to a meeting of Conservative ladies, another to a meeting of trade unionists. We on this side are rightly suspicious of its meaning in this clause. If anyone had given a legal definition we could have judged it. As it stands, it means all things to all men, and therefore I support this Amendment.
6.13 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I hope it will be convenient if I intervene fairly shortly—but not all that shortly—in this important debate. I should like to express gratitude to all my noble friends who have made such excellent contributions, and who have brought out so clearly and so well the points which are at the heart of this Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for what he said in recognising the restraint with which these speeches have been made. Although these speeches are made with restraint, the feelings we have about the heart of this Amendment are very strong indeed.
I am sure your Lordships will not complain if we devote a fair amount of time to the consideration of this Amendment and to this introductory clause. We recognise, as the Secretary of State recognised, the importance of the clause, when he said: "We ask that the whole Bill should be judged by Clause 1." Those are not his precise words, but they are his words, slightly out of order. It could not have been put more clearly than that. We are in the unusual position where, instead of considering the legal provisions of a Bill and deducing the philosophy from them, we are trying to state the philosophy in the first clause and then to devise legal provisions which will give it effect. It is of the utmost

983
importance that we should get these right. As my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said, it is most important we should get them right because of their political importance.
I hope that the Government will be in a position to confirm or deny that, although this clause is of such enormous political importance it has no legislative effect whatsoever. This is going to affect everything we have to say on other clauses. It is perfectly clear that I am no lawyer, but I reached that conclusion from reading the opening words of Clause 1:
"The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations…"
Suppose the Act does not—as we fear it will not—promote good industrial relations, but is seen to be promoting bad industrial relations. Suppose the position becomes worse, as judged by strikes or other appropriate yardsticks. Notwith-standing that industrial relations worsen instead of improve, all the provisions of this Bill, if then enacted, will remain law. So, although the Bill sets out what it is hoped to achieve, it is purely a statement of general principles of considerable importance and of no legislative effect.
We have had a longish discussion. I do not know how many columns in Hansard it will fill. In another place, they had an even longer discussion. It is not our desire unnecessarily to repeat a single discussion in another place if one can fully understand the purposes of the Government by reading what their spokesmen have said. The debate that we have had to-day has demonstrated the need for airing these difficulties, because they are not solved, even now, as I speak, to the satisfaction of noble Lords on this side of the House and at least one noble Lord on the other side of the House—the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst. He made a most relevant comment, with obvious sincerity, on coming to a difficulty—it seemed to me unrehearsed—which was being made plain by the discussion. Some of us who earlier had gone into the matter more fully had reached this difficulty. In the other place no clear legal answer was given. It is going to be difficult if we are going to be placed in this position throughout our discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will recollect that I was discourteous enough
984
to intervene on his Second Reading speech when he referred to free speech. I do not think anybody here would expect me to apologise for asking for clarification on a matter as important as free speech. It seemed to me that what the noble Lord said during his opening comments on the Second Reading of the Bill was something of extreme importance and required immediate clarification. The noble Lord took my point, as he always courteously does, and recognised the importance of it immediately to such an extent as to say that he would prefer this matter to be dealt with by his noble and learned friend.
Therefore it was with considerable care and interest that I listened to what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said in his opening speech the following day, when there was no restriction as to time—it was a full and an interesting speech, a very entertaining speech, and as usual one which was both stimulating and irritating, in the noble and learned Lord's manner. But the point was that there was not one word about the important issue of free speech. Of course, we shall be able to come back to it on Committee stage, Report, and so on; but I am saying to your Lordships that in the other House the whole of the long discussion elicited no clear view as to the legal position of those words which were sought to be removed—particularly of the word "responsibly"—and we seem to be getting into a similar position, because all that the noble and learned Lord who normally sits on the Woolsack told us to-day was, not what the words meant but that what his noble friend had said was right. What his noble friend had said was not what the single meaning of the word was, but what two meanings of the word might be.
6.22 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would allow me to intervene. We used to be neighbours in Gloucestershire not so long ago, and I hope we still are. I have looked up this word "responsibly". In your Lordships' Library, in Murray's, Volume 8, at page 542, full detail is given about the word "responsible" and the word "responsibility". "Responsibly" is of course the adjective. A quotation from Kipling, dated 1891, is given. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stow

985
Hill, is not in his seat because he would no doubt have a different version from this, but this is the quote:
"Mr. Beckwith stood by with the air of an ambassador and breathed responsibly."
If that is Murray'sexplanation of this word, I cannot believe that it is what we on this side of the Committee want to put into this Bill; and I do believe a difficulty is involved. Nor do we in any way wish to have the Amendments which noble Lords on that side of the Committee are putting forward. I wonder whether the difficulty is that the word is wrong. After looking through Webster'sNew Dictionary of Synonyms, it seems to me that "answerable" or "accountable"—"amenable" is obviously not right; "liable" is not right in this case—or similar words, would fulfil what this Bill intends. Back to Murray's:
"answerable or accountable to another for something liable to be called to account".
I suspect that noble Lords on that side are wondering how a shop steward or a "wildcat" strike—
EARL JELLICOE: I intervene purely in the interests of good Order in your Lordships' House. My noble friend's observations are rather lengthy for an interjection in somebody else's speech.
EARL BATHURST: I take that point, but we still do not know what "responsibly" means and I was trying to bring the dictionary definition to your Lordships' notice.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and understand his point very well. He will understand that I listened most acceptably and pleasurably to what the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, was saying. Whereas I was dealing with the matter in my usual heavy and ponderous way, he was dealing with it in a lighthearted and cutting way, and we are both driving at the same point. The word "responsible" can have its natural meaning from its Latin derivation of being answerable; and in that sense no trade unionist would ever dream of objecting to it because every trade union officer acts on behalf of his members—that is his function—and he has no right to do anything different from that. He is instructed by his members through whatever machinery exists. But there is
986
the further and separate meaning which the Government tell us to believe means, "having regard to the general interests of the community" or words to that effect in this context. It is perfectly clear that if one had the words, "the principle of collective bargaining freely conducted" they would mean something different from the words "freely and responsibly conducted ". The question therefore is: Does the word "responsibly" add to, or detract from, the freedom. The noble Earl has made it clear that the intention is that it should detract from the freedom because, as he says, freedom is limited; it turns into licence—we know all the arguments—and it is essential therefore that when collective bargaining takes place it should be not wholly free but free subject to consideration for other than the members of the association concerned, be it employers, be it employees, but subject to the overriding interests of the community. That is what the Government would have.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, was on solid ground also when he indicated that there might be words other than the words in the Amendment and the words in the clause itself which are required. This is a Committee stage and we will listen with great interest to what the noble Earl has to say after I have sat down. It may be that there are words which are not wholly acceptable but can be adjusted, and we may be able to find words acceptable to both sides. But the word "responsibly", so far as we have clarified what the Government mean, meaning a limitation of the freedom within which collective bargaining takes place, is not acceptable to this side of the Committee and not acceptable to trade unions. We do not accept that the function of conducting collective bargaining should be anything other than free; we do not believe it would work if it is other than free.
Why do the Government want this interpretation put upon these words? I am going to spell out the answer in short sentences. The arguments of the Conservatives run as follows: "Wage settlements are too high. The level of wage settlements therefore must be reduced. We, the Tories, are opposed to a statutory incomes policy. We have said so so many times that we cannot possibly be heard saying anything other than that. The

987
Tory present so-called policy is not working. What causes excessive wage settlements is the excessive power of the trade unions, and therefore the power of the unions must be curbed". That is the argument. I do not have to satisfy your Lordships about it because it was said time and time again during the Second Reading. What has gone wrong, said many of your Lordships from many parts of the House, was that the balance of power had switched excessively in favour of the unions, and their power had to be curbed.
With respect, the Government are confusing the function of bargaining (which should be conducted on such a basis that the bargain sticks: that is what bargaining is about; that is what the method is about) with the results of bargaining which they wish were at the present time and in the present state of inflation settled at a lower level. The Government cannot get out of their lack of policy on prices and incomes, which is the proper method for a Government to tackle inflation and inflationary wage settlements, if so they be. They cannot get out of their lack of policy on that—in which they are in considerable difficulty, as we can all see—by riding off on the method of wage settlement. I distinguish between the method of settling wage difficulties and conditions and a variety of other things, and the result, while this clause confuses the two and results in an attempt which every one of us has seen to be a bad and unsuccessful attempt to try to define satisfactorily the method by which collective bargaining should be conducted.
We all know that collective bargaining must be conducted on such a basis that the bargain, once made, is felt to be a bargain, be it at a high level or a low level; be it more or less than one side or the other expected. That is what we want to achieve. All the evidence in the Donovan Report and all the evidence in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, which I have read many times and can quote, but I am sure your Lordships will have read it as many times as I have (and he speaks, I imagine, with greater authority than anyone else in this House on this topic) all lead to the same conclusion, which is that for a bargain to stick it must be
988
freely and voluntarily entered into. If one is seeking something else one can use different words for a different purpose; but if one is seeking to establish the principle of what is the best method of conducting wage negotiations through collective bargaining, in such a way that those who have taken part on both sides will feel involved and will feel a commitment towards the result because they have themselves participated, then the first and most important condition of the whole thing is that it should be freely and voluntarily entered into.
Now the noble Earl the Leader of the House will see why we cannot move on this Amendment. It goes to the heart of the Bill and to the heart of the problem. I am as conscious as the noble Earl of the economic problems; I have lived with them as long as he has. I cannot claim to be as good a patriot, but I am no mean patriot and I would want to help in every way I can; but the first condition is to get voluntarily and freely agreed bargains that will stick. So I say that the present words are wholly unsatisfactory. The words "and responsibly" must come out. The word "freely" is all right and it might be satisfactory (I am only saying that it "might" be satisfactory) to say "collective bargaining freely conducted." I should not have thought it would hurt the Government much to accept such an Amendment, for example. It might be satisfactory, or it might be a compromise if we could get some other words should the words in the Amendment not entirely suit the Government. I agree that "freely conducted … on a voluntary basis" is fractionally tautological. "Freely" and "voluntary" add to one another, and to some extent one might say that one is included in the other; but at all events I want to make absolutely clear why we are wholly opposed to the words "and responsible".
May I detain your Lordships for just a further five minutes, to give an example of what might work out to be the case if we had the word "responsibly" left and if we imposed on an arbitration board, for example, or a board which was considering a wages dispute, the injunction to take into account the national interest—not as the Government define it but as the individual has always thought it to be. Imagine, for example,

989
that there is a dispute at Fords, and that the workers at Fords are asking for £10 and the employers are offering £5. The dispute goes to some kind of arbitration, and the arbitrator thinks about it carefully and says, "I am bound to take into account the national interest. What is the position round here?" The answer is, "The position is one of severe unemployment". "Oh", says the arbitrator, "Where is the unemployment?" The answer is, "In particular it is in the building industry"—(it often is)— "There are large numbers of builders unemployed. What they need are houses to build". "Well," says the arbitrator, "why are they not building houses?" "Oh", says his informant, "the trouble is that the level of wages at Fords is such that they cannot qualify for building society mortgages because the percentage is not right". "Oh", says the arbitrator, "Would this be solved if we were to put the wages up by £5?" "No" "By £10?" "No" "By £12?" "Yes, we could just get in then." "What would be the position if we were to put up the wages by £12?"His advisers would say, "Then there would be building society facilities which exist but which are not being used. There would be building society facilities galore, and all those who wanted to be able to buy their own house would be able to do so because they would not be precluded by the building society percentage limitation. They would be able to put down a deposit and to enter into a contract for a house, and the building society would give their usual advance to the builders; the builders would get cracking and unemployment in the building industry would be much reduced—and, incidentally, the people who are employed on the building sites who needed a motor car would go to Fords to buy a motor car." Therefore, the conclusion is that, taking into account the national interest, as the particular body saw it they would not limit the increase to £5 or to £10 but would propose more than either side wanted.
If your Lordships think this example a little far-fetched, may I give one further reason why I pick on Fords? A few of your Lordships will be old enough to recollect that whenever Henry Ford No. 1 found sales sagging he said, "The way to increase the sales of Ford motor cars is
990
to put up the wages of workers". This was rough economics, but it was economics of a kind.
So I am saying that not only are these words impossible for us to accept, not only do they discolour the whole aspect of this Bill—and we are asked to judge it by that—but they really would not necessarily achieve the purpose which the Government want to achieve. If the Government want to have a wages policy let them say what that wages policy is. This is not a Bill for a wages policy; this is a Bill to improve industrial relations, the essential trouble of which is that local bargains do not stick. We want to help industrial relations forward, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will give very careful further thought to what can be done to meet our point of view.
EARL JELLICOE: May I first pick a little bone with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham? He said one thing in the course of his speech which I very much disagreed with. He said, or he implied, that this was not the way in which we should conduct this important discussion on a very important clause of a very important Bill. I do not quite see how we could have conducted the discussion other than as we have. It has gone on a long lime, admittedly, but I think the whole of this discussion has been conducted, if I may coin a phrase, both freely and responsibly or, to coin another phrase, in an orderly and voluntary way, although given the number of Lord Shackleton's supporters on this Amendment I am not certain that the voluntary principle was applied 100 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, put a question to me at the start of his concluding remarks; that was, whether it was true that the clause we are discussing has no legislative effect—and I think he implied that he felt this was true. The answer is that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as so often, is almost completely right but not quite right. By reason of Clause 1(2) the principles in Clause 1(1) cannot be said to have no legislative effect whatsoever, but it remains quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that the later provisions of the Bill would remain operative without Clause 1, with the exception that this is also caught by subsection (1) of Clause 2. I think that is the position as precisely stated as I can state it.

991
Most of this long discussion—and some of it, I must confess, has had something of a Second Reading character, but I am not quarrelling with that at the present time—has centred on the suggestion that there is no clear definition of the word "responsibly". All I can say is that I am perfectly clear in my mind what "responsibly" means and what it means in this Bill—pace my noble friend Lord Bathurst, who I hope will allow me to continue as he has had quite a long innings. "Responsibly" to me is just as clear and unambiguous in this Bill as the word "voluntary". "Responsibly" to me is just as clear and unambiguous as the word "orderly", and, funnily enough the Opposition are now keen on the word "orderly", a word they objected to in another context at Second Reading.
EARL BATHURST: It is the words "responsibly conducted" that are giving the difficulty. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned lawyers in this House, just imagine the confusion outside. If the noble Earl could help by using a synonym or in some other way, to remove that unclarity, I feel that it would be a very great help to this Bill and the principles that those of us who sit on this side of the House would like to see carried forward.
EARL JELLICOE: I listened very attentively to my noble friend, and I usually go along with him. Although it may have caused some difficulty to some lawyers in your Lordships' House, this particular adverb causes no difficulty to me and it causes no difficulty to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He said that I endeavoured to the best of my ability to explain what to me and to the Government "responsibly" means in the context of this Bill, and to the best of my recollection my noble and learned friend said that I had stated this correctly, exhaustively and plainly, and I am afraid I am prepared to rest on that.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in his usual mellifluous and honeyed tones, have done their best to help us out of the difficulty on which the noble Lord sought to impale us. All I can say is that I listened carefully to the noble Lord, and I think
992
the short answer to the point he was making is that "collective bargaining" goes a great deal wider than the "settlement of disputes". He thought that what we are after would be covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1, because "orderly" "with due regard to the general interests of the community", features in that paragraph. All I would say is that collective bargaining is defined in Clause 158 at the end of this Bill. The procedures agreements are hitched to that—that is also defined there—and "collective bargaining" goes a great deal wider than the "orderly settlement of disputes". Therefore, I am quite certain that while the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was trying his level best to be helpful, in fact he was not really being all that helpful to me or the Government.
LORD SHINWELL: It seems to me that what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has done is to create another problem of semantics. If noble Lords will look at the two paragraphs—the one under review and the one to which I made reference—they will observe the words, "the principle of collective bargaining". This is what the argument is about. Then if they take paragraph (b), to which I referred it says:
"… maintaining orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful and expeditious settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration, with due regard to the general interests of the community".
What more do you want? In fact I do not know why you want the first paragraph at all; it is all in paragraph (b).
EARL JELLICOE: I sought to explain that. By definition in this Bill "collective bargaining" goes a great deal wider than "settlement of disputes". One glance at Clause 158 would make that perfectly clear to the noble Lord. The fact that it is covered in (b)—or if it might be "responsibly", that is imported into (b)—does not mean that it is not also needed in (a).
LORD SHINWELL: Will the noble Earl say why the term "collective bargaining" differs fundamentally from "negotiation"?
EARL JELLICOE: It certainly embraces negotiation, but "negotiation" in paragraph (b) refers to negotiation in the

993
settlement of disputes. It is a more restricted point.
LORD PARGITER: I should like to be clear. If an employer says, "I can offer so much", and the trade union says, "We want so much", is that not a dispute between the two? They might arrive at a settlement, but surely there is a point of dispute between the two. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a dispute; one wants one thing and one wants another. Therefore, there is a dispute between the two. It is very simple.
EARL JELLICOE: It is perfectly clear, and I am sure the noble Lord will see that if he refreshes his memory with a glance at Clause 158. This goes a great deal wider than the definition of "collective bargaining". I am rather loath to make a Second Reading speech towards what I hope is the conclusion of a fairly long discussion. I must say that I have listened very carefully to the points put by noble Lords opposite. I listened not least, and very carefully, to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I think he said that the more he listened to the discussion, the more worried he was about the clause as it stands. I must confess that the more I have listened to this discussion the more worried I would be if the clause were amended as the Opposition would wish to amend it.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that this would mean that by importing "responsibility" we are detracting from freedom. We view this as a balance of freedom and responsibility. I would say that the importation of the concept of responsibility does not detract from the freedom of collective bargaining, save in the sense that the freedom of both management and labour to bargain collectively should be conducted responsibly. On that I am perfectly content to rest.
I am also content to rest on the straightforward words used by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He said that he thought that this Part of the Bill represented a perfectly sensible and straightforward declaration of intent. It is my belief that this Part of the Bill, unamended, represents a perfectly sensible, straightforward and reasonable declaration of intent. It is for those reasons—though I gave considerable consideration to this matter before this discussion, and I have listened very carefully
994
to the discussion—that I am afraid I cannot advise my noble friends to accept this Amendment.
6.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: Whatever else I may be accused of. I cannot be accused of having made a Second Reading speech in this debate so far. I am not sure that the noble Earl can be free of that charge—at least on his first speech. I think this is a key clause; the Government say that it is a key clause in the Bill. I believe it has been right to deploy the arguments fully, and I am glad that the noble Earl thinks that this has been done moderately and well.
I do not understand why the Government at this stage want to stick to the word "responsibly". The noble and learned Lord helpfully wakes up for the occasion and gives us an answer, and I am glad to see him back in good form. However, it does not seem to have settled the peace of mind of the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who proceeds to debate, in an interesting and, from our point of view, helpful way by the form of intervention in the middle of speeches. I suppose this is what might be called "intervening responsibly". You always have to sit down, and somebody else continues the speech.
It must be apparent to some noble Lords on that side of the Committee, as on this side, that there is anxiety; and one of the mistakes the Government are consistently making with regard to the Bill is to underrate the deep suspicions that exist. This word "responsibly"—and after all, we all accept that people ought to behave responsibly—has been imported into the Bill in a way in which it is attached specifically to legal processes. Although the noble Earl suggested to my noble friend that it made very little legal difference (I cannot remember the exact phrase; indeed, most of the specific provisions for particular behaviour come later in the Bill), the fact is that, as he said, subsection (2) is governed, and this relates to the action of the National Industrial Relations Court and Industrial Tribunals.
Many people may think that it is absurd on both our sides that we are splitting hairs over the one word "responsibly", but I think the case has been put fairly both by the Government and

995
by the Opposition. I would have hoped that even at this stage the Government would be willing to think again. I am prepared to acquit the noble Earl of undue tactical manœuvring. I think perhaps he was a little dangerously frank. I have usually managed to get away with these frank remarks in the House, but I am not sure that it is entirely safe.
There are other aspects of his remarks which give me grave doubt as to whether the Government have thought properly about this. What he said in relation to our Amendment was that if we carried in the words,
"orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining"
it would interfere with, and possibly make it impossible to operate, the Contracts of Employment Act. Or perhaps he objects to the addition of the words, "on a voluntary basis". If I may say to him and his legal advisers—perhaps I should not say it to them, but to him—this really must be nonsense. I cannot see in this respect much difference between "freely conducted collective bargaining" and "collective bargaining freely conducted". The two expressions seem to me to be the same. These are the key phrases. The addition of the word "orderly" does not seem to weaken it, and "on a voluntary basis "relates only to the collective bargaining. I cannot accept that his is a valid argument against our Amendment, and because it is used I am of the opinion that the Government have not fully thought out this point.
Our Amendment follows exactly what the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Carr, said in another place on November 26, namely,
"We are saying orderly and freely conducted collective bargaining on a voluntary basis."
The Consultative Document says,
"The first fundamental belief is that the best, and probably the only way of determining pay and conditions of work in a free society is by a voluntary system of negotiation free from State control."
That seems to me to follow almost precisely the words of our Amendment.
The Government want their Bill to succeed. It is the view of the great majority on this side of the Committee, and the view of some on the noble Earl's side, that the Bill will never work. I will tell them that it will never work until they are prepared to make real concessions to genuinely held anxieties. And this anxiety is genuinely held. There is no suggestion that what we are trying to say in this Amendment is something just "cooked up" to waste time; it is a genuinely held anxiety. Therefore, I would only ask, even at this late stage, whether the Government will consider what we have to say. Whereas the noble Earl gave an answer to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, I am bound to point out that we fully accept what is contained in subsection 1(b). It seems to me to cover the issue well enough.
On the definition of collective bargaining, which arguably goes wider, we are not objecting to the use of the words "With due regard to the general interests of the community"; but I shall be very disappointed if we are to proceed through this Bill, in this way, without the Government's making some effort to show a willingness to meet the anxieties in industry. In the circumstances, we have no option but to divide the Committee.
7.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 156.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Diamond, L.

Hughes, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Balogh, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Janner, L.

Bernstein, L.

Fiske, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Longford, E.

Brown, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

McLeavy, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hall, V.

Maelor, L.

Champion, L.

Henderson, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chorley, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Pargiter, L.

Collison, L.

Hoy, L.

Phillips, Bs, [Teller.]

Platt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Silkin, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Royle, L.

Slater, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rusholme, L.

Snow, L.

White, Bs.

Sainsbury, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Williamson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Stonham, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Segal, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Molson, L.

Ailsa, M.

Essex, E.

Monck, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Allerton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gage, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barrington, V.

Glasgow, E.

Oakshott, L.

Bathurst, E.

Glendevon, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gray, L.

Poole, L.

Blackburn, L.Bp.

Greenway, L.

Powis, E.

Blakenham, V.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Boston, L.

Gridley, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Brecon, L.

Hailes, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L.
Chancellor)

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Rothermere, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hankey, L.

Rothes, E.

Burton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Byers, L.

Harcourt, V.

Sackville, L.

Caldecote, V.

Harris, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrick, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Helens, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hood, V.

Savile, L.

Coleridge, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selsdon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sempill, Ly.

Colyton, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L.Privy Seal)

Stonehaven, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Strange, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Latymer, L.

Teviot, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Thurlow, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Thurso, V.

De L'Isle, V.

Luke, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

MacAndrew, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Verulam, E.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Dudley, E.

Margadale, L.

Wigram, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, after ("freely") insert ("democratically").
The noble Lord said: After that democratic and intelligent Vote, I am sure that your Lordships will be willing to listen to the reasons why the words which we sought to remove from the Bill but which still remain could be further improved by the insertion of the word "democratically", after the word

999
"freely". Paragraph (a) would then read:
"the principle of collective bargaining freely, democratically and responsibly conducted ".
May I explain to your Lordships why I think it right that the word "democratically" should be added, and the extent to which it improves the method of conducting collective bargaining?
I have already had an opportunity on the previous Amendment to say that what we all seek out of collective bargaining is a bargain which will stick. There are two ways to approach this. One way is to have a bargain which is legally enforceable, with sanctions against nonobservance of the bargain. Another way is to have the method of collective bargaining conducted in such a way that those who are involved will fully participate in the negotiations, will feel involved in the bargain, will thereby develop a sense of obligation and may even develop a sense of moral and emotional commitment as well. If we can achieve that, we shall have a likelihood, far greater than the likelihood in legal enforceability, of the bargain sticking. May I remind your Lordships of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said during the course of our Second Reading debate? At column 44 on April 5 he said:
"…if one takes the trouble to count up the number which the Bill creates"—
that is the number of new kinds of tort—
"he will arrive at the figure of at least 179. If these provisions turn out in practice to be unjustly repressive they will fail, just as all legislation in this field having that effect has failed before.
"Industrial peace cannot come that way. Industrial relations are a domain where peace comes only by willing co-operation".
I thought, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, that that was put with great clarity and force. Those represent precisely the views of my noble friends and myself; and it is because a bargain is likely to have some force if the process of arriving at it is shared and participated in by those concerned, and not likely to have much force if it depends purely on legal enforceability, that I am hoping that the Government will look kindly on the word that the Amendment proposes to add, namely "democratically", which
1000
means all these things—taking a share in it.
But it is not only that in general terms: it is also in particular terms that I put this Amendment forward, because we know from the Donovan Report that the main cause of the trouble which we seek to remove arises from the difficulties at local level, and the solution therefore is to strengthen bargaining at the local level. What could do that better than by having the greatest possible participation at the local level of those affected on both sides? Indeed, if the local level is sufficiently local and limited, "democratically" could really come back to its Athenian meaning, and all those concerned could really take part in the bargain. But whether it is all those concerned or representatives of those concerned, the more that they feel involved and the smaller the group, and the more it is a local group, the more likelihood there is of the bargain sticking.
It is necessary in my view that these words should be included, because, as we all know, the Bill seeks to do precisely the opposite from what we are proposing and what Donovan proposed. The Bill seeks to centralise power rather than to delegate it down to the local branches. The Bill, by insisting on the authority of those who are going to negotiate, by insisting on the authority being formulated and clearly and formally described, will result in complete centralisation of all the negotiations. Therefore it is essential to make it clear that the Bill adopts the Donovan remedy based on the Donovan analysis. The trouble is that at local areas the solution is the strengthening of local bargaining, and it is for these reasons that I hope that the Government will feel disposed towards the words which can have only one meaning. They will have the effect of engaging the interest of those for whom the bargain is made, and make them feel involved in and responsible for maintaining the bargain. I beg to move.
7.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree with almost everything the noble Lord has said, except his conclusions. We certainly want to see—it is one of the main objectives set out in the Donovan Report, and in subsequent documents—much more factory and plant bargaining. There

1001
is nothing in this Bill that would prevent that; indeed, there is a great deal in the Bill that will encourage it. On the one hand, in cases like that, you will have the employer; on the other, you will have the trade union or joint negotiating panel of the trade union. I also fully agree that it is extremely important that everybody should feel involved in the undertaking of which he is a member, and to that extent also in the collective bargaining that takes place. In that respect, we should all like to see the collective bargaining conducted in the same manner as the Athenians conducted their politics. That would perhaps be a bit rowdy, and I am sure it would he necessary to commit the negotiations to representatives. The point is—
LORD DIAMOND: May I interrupt the noble Lord? My proposal would be to include the wage slaves.
A NOBLE LORD: They were not wage slaves, they were just slaves.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Just slaves—yes, indeed. About half Athens are slaves, too. I think the point we have to bear in mind and the question we have to ask ourselves is: does the word "democratically" fit in this particular context? The noble Lord says that it has a clear clear meaning. I should have thought it has meant different things at different times in different countries to different people. I looked in the dictionary and I found no very clear definition except in terms of running a country. Democratic institutions also vary from time to time; people's concepts of democratic institutions have varied, but they have to be shaped to the needs of the times and the circumstances of the country in which they are.
I put this to the noble Lord. He has all along been stressing the structure of one side of bargaining. Democratic processes take place within institutions and within countries, not between institutions and between countries. Here we are talking of negotiations. The very words "collective bargaining" are defined as "negotiations" in Clause 115. "Collective bargaining" means "negotiations" with respect to this, that and the next thing. I put it to the Committee that negotiations between this country and Russia or China, or wherever it may be,
1002
or between an employer and a trade union can be described as democratic.
LORD SHINWELL: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. In the previous debate we had, when I suggested to his noble friend Earl Jellicoe that "collective bargaining" was synonymous with "negotiation" he rejected it. Now the noble Lord says that it is all right.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think we had better not back-track on this. I think we were talking at that point of the difference between collective bargaining and procedure agreements. Collective bargaining goes a good deal wider than the noble Lord was referring to, which related to paragraph (b). Perhaps we had better not go too far on that; I take the noble Lord's point.
This is the thought that I must put to your Lordships. Obviously, it is highly desirable that within the trade unions, and, for that matter, within employers' associations, democracy should prevail, but when they get to collective bargaining between them it is a little difficult to see the significance of the word "democratic" in that case. Because the word does not seem to be appropriate in that context; because it seems to have a different meaning for different people at different times, and also because I am informed—and I am prepared to be challenged on this—that the word does not occur in our law at the present time, I think that it would be difficult to interpret in any kind of legislative context. Indeed, it would be difficult for the various bodies who have to use subsection (1) as guiding principles to interpret, so I do not think this would improve the Bill.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am still rather uncertain about the noble Lord's meaning. He clearly said that the object of this particular clause would be to get more factory and plant bargaining. That is a very sweeping statement to make, because if you get this factory and plant bargaining in certain industries, in the way indicated, what is the ultimate outcome? It is that one factory, one plant, in one part of the country is competing to gain conditions prevailing in a similar plant or factory in another part of the country. This is particularly so in the motor car industry. What will

1003
be the position if the words "democratically elected" are not accepted? The noble Lord opposite wanted more plant and factory bargaining. Will there not be even more unofficial strikes unless there is a defining of the type of procedure that the negotiating bodies must go through before they are eligible to conduct the negotiations?
This indicates how unwholesome this Bill really is. Its political ideology is thought out without consultation with the C.B.I. or the T.U.C. I make no bones about saying that some of our major troubles are through unofficial strikes: the Government are utilising these as an excuse for bringing in this Bill. But unless we accept something along the lines of what my noble friend has suggested, to ensure that the people conducting the negotiations have to go through a certain democratic procedure, the Government are opening the door to further unofficial strikes. I thought it odd that the Minister should bring in the question of interpretation of democratic procedures in various other countries. Surely we are not concerned with that in this particular Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was not talking about democratic procedures in different countries but about the interpretation given in different countries to the word "democratically".
LORD POPPLEWELL: I think that the Government would be well advised to have another look at this. It is creating so much disturbance and heart-searching among responsible trade union leaders. There should be an acceptance of this word "democratically". The various unions have various forms of selection of negotiating machinery and officers. Some do it by a show of hands; some by individual votes, and some by branch votes. Unless there is a defining of the procedure by which people have to accept responsibility, unless there is an attempt to make it less vague than at present, we shall not do away with unofficial disputes but accentuate them. I hope that the Government will look again at this Amendment.
LORD BROWN: I hope that I am not going to embarrass my noble friends on the Front Bench, but I feel that this
1004
Amendment is ill-advised. I have been a chief executive for many years and I have often been accused of being an industrial democrat. I rejected this because nobody could give the words a meaning. If we regard democracy as the mechanism of an association of citizens, we are all certain what it means; if we use the term "democratic" in relation to the procedure of election of representatives we all know what it means. But when we apply the word "democratic" to collective bargaining I think that it becomes meaningless. Bargaining is a meeting of representatives of different associations, very often conditioned by the relative power of each group—and anything further removed from democracy than a power struggle in collective bargaining in industry I cannot think of. This is a tortuous use of the term. We on this side should reserve the use of the word "democratic"—which we shall no doubt have to use in many places where it has been omitted—to its proper context. We should not use it in such a way as to divorce it from all substantial meaning.
LORD SHINWELL: I am surprised at my noble friend. I should have thought that the word under review is far from being meaningless. It is fundamental. It is regarded by the trade union movement as of very great importance. There may be collective bargaining in the course of which on the trade union side there may be a number of ill-assorted people who are not democratic in character at all. That is just what the Government want to avoid.
LORD BROWN: I agree with my noble friend. But he is applying the word "democratic" to the process of the selection of representatives. I was speaking about the use of the word as applied to bargaining.
LORD SHINWELL: It is not merely a question of election of representatives. Let us take a situation in collective bargaining where on one side there is a responsible body of employers, representing the C. B. I. or another organisation, and on the other side, instead of a democratically elected and democratically minded group of people, ready to engage in the process of collective bargaining, there is a group of ill-assorted

1005
people. This situation is quite conceivable, and it is what the Government are trying to avoid. In that I agree with them 100 per cent. I agree with the Government that this is not the sort of bargaining they want.
Let us consider what has happened in the debate on the preceding Amendment. The Government got their way by a 2 to 1 majority. In other words, the word "responsibly" is accepted by a decision of your Lordships. All we are now asking for is that the word "democratically" should be accepted. This is a process of collective bargaining. This is what we are engaged in. The Government got their way on the last Amendment; we are asking that the Government should give way on this. My noble friend said that the word was meaningless, but that was not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Drumaibyn, for he questioned its meaning. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, in the course of his short speech, said that democracy means all sorts of things to all sorts of people. When we discussed the word "responsibly" the Government would not accept that there were several meanings attached to it; they said that there was only one. What it was we never got to know; but they said that there was only one meaning to that word. Now, when it comes to "democratically" they discover that there are variations in the meaning and interpretation of that term. It just will not do. This is not the way to improve the Bill.
I am largely with the Government in this matter. I know the history of this industrial relations business; I was much involved in it during the previous Administration—not as a member of the Government but on the sidelines. I largely agree with the purpose of the Government here, although I do not think they have gone the right way about it. I do not want to indulge in a Second Reading speech. But if they want to improve the Bill they must make some kind of concession. Here is something that the trade union movement regards as important. The Government thought that "responsibly" was important. They got their way. Now we are talking about collective bargaining, and this discussion is an example of collective bargaining in this House. I do not know whether we can appoint somebody as an arbiter. The
1006
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is out of the question. He does not participate, except as a legal luminary interpreting the law. And the law is not in question at the moment. We cannot ask him; we have no Chairman; we have no Mr. Speaker; what can we do? I suggest we do it just by consent—a consensus; that, just by consent, we agree that this is a very useful term. Let us proceed to agree in order to satisfy the trade union movement, now that the Government are appeased because of what happened in the preceding debate when they had a huge majority.
7.40 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I hope that it will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Brown, if, in a few words, I support him. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in a characteristic speech, said we should insert this word because the trade unions demand it. I wonder whether they do. I will tell your Lordships the reason for my doubt. I would avoid using the word "democratically" here for a very simple reason: it will throw the greatest doubt on what is meant. That was the reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and. I will say why he was right. Let me remind the Committee of what happened only a week or two ago. There was a settlement brought about by a ballot. Many people think that a secret ballot is a more democratic method of deciding something than people holding up hands, where a lot of people are present in order to overawe what may he either a majority or a minority by the threat of the use of force.
But what happened? The process of the ballot having resulted in a recommendation to return to work, this was at once denounced on the ground that it was "undemocratic". Of course, the people who so denounced it were perfectly sincere, because they were using the word "democratic" in the way that the Communists use it. The Communists use the word "democratic" to describe any system of government in which only the Communists decide what is to be done. It is on this principle that the Communist tyranny in East Germany is called the German Democratic Republic. If we want to introduce complete confusion into the meaning of this clause, by all means let us introduce the word "democratically".
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Noble Lords have taken the words out of my mouth. I think "democratically" would be quite meaningless in this context. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who I hope will not be embarrassed by my agreeing with him. If your Lordships consider the union leadership, which I have always understood is voted on by about 10 per cent. of the union members, you could argue that that leadership is not democratic. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, should use the word "democratically" in his Amendment. It seems to me to be sailing close to the wind. I wanted to make the point that I think it a very stupid word to use in this context, but I will not say any more because I do not want to bring a feeling of acrimony into the discussion.
LORD BROWN: May I say a word to my noble friend Lord Shinwell? He has described this getting together here this afternoon as collective bargaining. In the course of trying to improve this Bill we shall have to be extremely disciplined about the way we discuss social institutions. May I remind the noble Lord that this is a committee meeting in the truest and most definite sense of the word. It is where a decision is taken by a majority vote. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows perfectly well that collective bargaining is not a question of a majority vote, but of a clash of groups who, if they disagree, can separate without arriving at an agreement; or if an agreement must be come to, the one with the most power will win. If we start off a debate on the Amendment in complete confusion about the various institutions referred to in the clause we shall indeed get into a mess. I am interested in the subject of social institutions, and I am going to stick to such disciplines as I know throughout the discussions on this Bill—Party or no Party—because I believe in the necessity for discipline in regard to those institutions.
LORD SHINWELL: May I satisfy my noble friend Lord Brown? —I still call him "my noble friend". May I say that I would be the last person in the world to deny him the right to express his opinion; just as I justify my own expression of opinion, even though it
1008
may not be acceptable to many people. It is a matter of argument. My noble friend expresses one point of view; he said that the word was meaningless. I said that in the opinion of the trade union movement it is important. When it comes to a question of operating as a committee, I agree that we have to accept the opinion of the majority. But I have a suspicion, indeed, it is even more than a suspicion, that what is going to happen all the time during our debates, however protracted or argumentative they may be, is that at the end of the day the forces on the other side of the Committee, whipped from all quarters (quite rightly so; for, after all, in battle you are entitled to bring up reinforcements) will win. I accept that. But we have got to argue the case, and there is no objection to that. My noble friend will argue one point and some of us will argue the other, and often we shall agree.
LORD SLATER: I was very interested in the observations of my noble friend Lord Brown. Had he been batting on the trade union side and not the business side in an election of officials and committee members for a trade union branch, he would have seen that things were carried out democratically. What is the argument about? As I see it, it concerns free people entering freely into discussions about their own future work and wages; about their having a say in the type of agreement to be arrived at. I think the Donovan Committee recognised this position. It may be that a certain amount of power regarding the drafting of agreements has to be diverted from the central office of a trade union to its districts.
Take my own union, the National Union of Mineworkers, which has districts, and a central office which negotiates on a national basis. A certain amount of autonomy is transferred to the districts, where agents and officials, and members of the executive, are allowed to enter into negotiations with National Coal Board representatives. But the executive members and the agents have been democratically elected to negotiate on behalf of the membership, and that is what we mean by "democratically".
Many noble Lords have fought General Elections. I have fought six, and Heaven knows how many elections my noble friend Lord Shinwell has fought! But

1009
we are supposed to be living in a democratic country. When we take parties round the Houses of Parliament we say that this is the Mother of Parliaments; that this is the place from which democracy sprang. But we find there is a form of restraint on the part of the present Government, or the Party from which it was elected, in case too much freedom is granted to associations representing the working people who produce by hand and brain, in case they get too much liberty and so on. I support this Amendment, that "democratically" should be inserted in the clause.
My noble friends are to be congratulated upon introducing this Amendment. I stand most definitely against what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had to say with regard to the Communist countries. I have been to the Soviet Union and met Krushchev and Kosygin and other Communist leaders, and I know how democracy works in that country. In this country democracy is part of our upbringing, and our unions will not allow anyone to hold office in the union unless he has been democratically elected by the members of the union. Therefore we place great importance on the word "democracy". I hope that the Government will give great consideration to this Amendment with a view to accepting it. I cannot see what they have to lose by doing so.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: In discussing the first Amendment, noble Lords opposite laid great stress on maintaining the freedom of procedure in collective bargaining. Here we have an Amendment to put in the word "democratically" which surely restricts the freedom of collective bargaining. If democracy in this context means anything at all, to the majority of people it will mean that a vote has to be taken on every decision put forward by the negotiators. This is surely removing the authority of the negotiators. Are the Opposition going to insist on the employers' associations having a vote after their representatives have reached agreement with the unions? Surely they do not want that. Yet that is the way in which I think this would be interpreted by many. Apart: from the difficulty of interpretation, it introduces a restriction on procedure, and I believe that we should be much better without this word. We are in grave danger of
1010
introducing a conception which might be useful in some cases but quite unsuitable in others. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment on this ground alone, that it introduces a restriction on the conception of collective bargaining.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: If I thought that this clause was actually going to be the subject of detailed analysis in the courts, as apparently a number of noble Lords seem to think, I should share the worry shown by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and I should have come down against it. I would have worked myself tip about democracy, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I would have gone through the whole clause and removed every single adverb. But I do not think this is what the first clause is about. I supported the Government's use of the word "responsibly" in the first Amendment because I thought that this clause was a broad sensible statement of aims, and it is for the same reason that I also support the insertion of the word "democratically". If it is not in our law, so much the worse. It is a good word to go into our law, and there has to be a first time.
We in the Liberal Party believe in industrial democracy. We believe that people in their places of work should have a say in what goes on there. I know that we go much further in this way than the official Labour Party do. We shall be supporting them, I imagine, in their Amendment No. 6 about the workers' share in management, though it is not put in exactly the form I should like to see. We believe that this is important, and our main accusation against the Bill is that it does not move towards real democracy in industry. We think that this is a major flaw. Regarding as I do, the whole of the first clause as a broad, sweeping declaration of intent, and not as something that will have to be considered word for word by the courts as to its meaning, I do not think that this is of world shattering importance. Nevertheless, I shall vote for the word "democratically" and I hope that my noble friends will vote with me.
LORD GOODMAN: I find this Amendment puzzling. It seems to me that both sides are right in one way or another, and I would invite the Government to

1011
consider the use of this word more seriously than on just the linguistic and legalistic considerations that have been advanced. The proclaimed purpose of this legislation—how it is going to be achieved will be a matter of important discussion in the ensuing days—is that the Government believe that the trade union organisations are not working democratically; that there is not sufficient liaison between leaders and members, and that it is vitally necessary to restore democracy to trade union decisions. Therefore it is extremely puzzling that they should resist the insertion of this word in the opening clause of the Bill which proclaims this purpose. I think it unwise to resist the Amendment on these grounds. I should have thought that the insertion of the word "democratically" was consistent with the Government's professed intention, and that it might create some areas of suspicion if they resisted its insertion.
Similar objections could be made to the whole of this clause. The word "reasonably" could have been challenged, as being difficult to give it a total literal meaning. It would have been enough simply to say in general the principle of collective bargaining, but "democratically", as a qualification, is designed to define more clearly the nature of collective bargaining. It seems to me that the Government should think twice before, at this early stage, rejecting a word which is broadly consistent with the whole of their professed policy and intention.
May I say a word about my noble friend Lord Conesford's objection to the use of the word "democratic". I do not think that we should abandon the word because it is abused in Eastern Germany. It seems to me absolutely wrong that a splendid, important and healthy word should be discarded because it is misused in those parts of the world where they have absolutely no understanding of its value.
LORD CONESFORD: That was not exactly my objection. It is that it is interpreted in two ways in this country and by trade union leaders engaged in negotiations. I gave the concrete example of a ballot. If a ballot is regarded by one set of people as democratic and by an-
1012
other set as undemocratic, to put it in the Bill will cause confusion.
LORD GOODMAN: If I may say so, we have had very uncharacteristically from my noble friend Lord Conesford, an unconvincing argument. It seems to me no reason for rejecting a noble conception just because some people have a distorted understanding of it. The notion of democracy is imminent in the whole structure of this country. That we should be prepared to abandon the word because there are a few misguided persons who have a mistaken notion of its quality and believe a ballot to be undemocratic to my mind is an argument of hopeless futility and despair, an argument I would not normally have associated with my noble friend. I do not want to keep noble Lords too long on this point but it is important. The Government should think again. This Amendment does not raise any issue on the interpretation of the Bill, but a very important issue as to the intention of the Bill. At this early stage the more clear that intention can be made, the more evidence there is that the intention is consistent with the professed and proclaimed purpose of the Government, the more easily the Bill will be introduced and the less unnecessary controversy will arise on account of it.
LORD DIAMOND: May I say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and how much helped I have been by the persuasive arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I would say, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Brown, that I was not embarrassed at all by his intervention. I always listen to what my noble friend says with great care and respect. I only hope I do not embarrass him by saying that I sing his praises regularly to friends of mine; and the particular reason for doing so is that I make it clear to everybody that I meet and with whom I discuss industrial relations that there is nobody that I know who conducts his industrial relations as democratically as my noble friend. I am hoping therefore that he will understand the reason why I want others to follow the lead which he has shown over the years in his own firm in the matter of industrial relations.
I come back to the rather familiar answer that I received from the noble

1013
Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The first part of his answer tends to be (I do not claim that it is always so) that he agrees more or less with everything that I have said. The second part of his answer is that, therefore, he cannot accept the Amendment. We had a lot of this on a Bill to which I need not refer, when we spent some happy hours together, but I am sure that this is not a foreboding of what is going to happen on this Bill.
Perhaps I may make one or two minor points on the reasons why I do not think that some of his arguments are all that persuasive. With the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I do not think that the definition of "democracy" in foreign countries is very important. I am bound to apologise to your Lordships for not having looked up the meaning either in Sanskrit or Urdu before I came to the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There was not such a thing.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble and learned Lord says, "There was not such a thing". I have not looked it up, but I am prepared to bet a new 2½p that there is a Sanskrit derivation for "demos". We shall see who is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is changing his ground. I said there was not such a thing as democracy when Sanskrit was a spoken language, not that there was not an equivalent to demos.
LORD DIAMOND: Well, we shall see. Anyway, we are both making the same point really: that you cannot attempt to interpret a British Statute by reference to a language other than English. Therefore I do not think that is a very valid complaint. The noble Lord's second complaint was that it is a new word to our Statutes. I dare say there are many words which are new to our Statutes. For aught I know an "agency shop" is new to our Statutes. Unless I am told to the contrary, I would aver that it is new to our Statutes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is a term of art, whereas "democratically" is supposed to be descriptive in the common sense that everyone will understand.
LORD DIAMOND: So we are agreed on the fact that "agency shop" is a phrase new to our Statutes, and appa-
1014
rently there seems to be no objection on that score by the Government to bringing it forward. I have no doubt that it is in some definition clause. So I do not think either of those points is very telling.
To the noble Lord who thought that democracy is exclusively a method of putting things to the test by counting votes, I would say I do not think that that includes the whole of democracy. It was no part of my suggestion that collective bargaining should take place on the basis that where there was one employer and 8,000 employees, and there was any dispute as to the level of wages, it should be settled by taking a vote. That would be a happy arrangement if it could be arrived at, but I am being converted gradually to the view that votes do not always mean that the argument is on the side of the majority. Nor do I think that the number of votes is relevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to say that he agreed with practically everything I said. What I was driving at, and what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has underlined more powerfully and more clearly, is that there is a great deal more to be said in achieving satisfactory collective bargaining than has been said in subsection (1)(a). The concepts which I illustrated are concepts which the Government accept. If the noble Lord does not think that the word "democratically" is the most important single word likely to give that meaning and to help people to understand it, then I shall be glad to listen to any other suggestion that he has to make for achieving our common purpose of making the subsection describe a method of conducting collective bargaining under which those who take part in it will feel involved, and will have a possibility of participation.
These are all the arguments which I used when I moved the Amendment. It is much easier—and I say this with apology to those noble Lords who were only critical—to criticise a form of words than to create another form. So far as I am concerned, "democratic" means something which of all things in this country we value most. We all understand the general democratic process;

1015
and we all understand that the great virtue of it is that those who are governed democratically are satisfied with the Government because they themselves have taken part in creating that Government. That is the whole process. In the same way, we want people to feel involved in collective bargaining, because they feel that they have taken part in it. It is not denied in any part of the House that these are wholesome suggestions. I should not think it is a matter of life and death whether we use the word "democratically".
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for what he has said. I understand his view, and of course there are Liberal overtones in connection with this word in this context. He was thinking perhaps that we ought to divide the House on the Amendment. At this stage, if the noble Lord agrees, I would far rather invite the Government to think about it a little more. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been good enough to say that the arguments that I have put forward are arguments that he shares. The difficulty perhaps is, if "democratically" is not the right word, to find a better one. As this is not a legislative clause, but one which describes purposes and which is intended, among other things, to get the co-operation of all parties concerned, it seems to me that the use of the word "democratically", even though it is a little less than 100 per cent. precise (I take the point of noble Lords who mentioned this), would serve its purpose very well; and I feel that this is what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, also was indicating. In these circumstances, I do not think this is a case where I should invite your Lordships to divide, particularly at an inconvenient hour. But I hope the noble Lord will feel able to say that he will read the debate, give thought to it, and see whether, at a later stage in the Bill, he can put forward a word or words which will incorporate some of the thinking which, even if the present suggested Amendment is not precisely apposite, we share.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has made a persuasive approach, and I willingly give him the undertaking
1016
that we will look at the debate on the clause as a whole. One of the main points I was making was that not only did the word itself seem to be vague, but it seemed to be misplaced. I think we should look at the debate as a whole before the next stage. On those terms, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord's hopes are immediately realised. I am grateful to him for what he has said. I accept his point that we have to look at the clause as a whole: indeed, it would be nonsense to do otherwise, especially as there are many Amendments which affect it, some of which we have still to discuss. In the circumstances, with the leave of your Lordships, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, after ("orderly") insert ("voluntarily agreed").
The noble Lord said: This refers to Clause 1(1) (b). With the Amendment it would read:
"The principle of developing and maintaining orderly voluntarily agreed procedures in industry for the peaceful and expeditious settlement of disputes…"
In this case I believe the Amendment is on common ground with what both the Secretary of State has said and with the Donovan Report. I will quote the Secretary of State, Mr. Carr, at column 658 of Hansard during the Committee Stage in another place on January 18, where he said:
"We certainly want procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes to be voluntarily agreed. That is how it should come about, and that is why we stress in the principle that we want settlement to come about by negotiation, by conciliation or by arbitration. In doing so we are making crystal clear that we believe that the proper way to arrive at procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes is by voluntary agreement assisted, where necessary, by conciliation and arbitration. "
There could not be a clearer or more authoritative statement:
…voluntary agreement assisted, where necessary, by conciliation and arbitration."
The word "voluntary" is the word which we are seeking to have inserted.
At paragraph 1054 of the Donovan Report the same thought is authoritatively expressed:
"The implications of making collective agreements into binding legal contracts are examined. A measure which had the effect of putting on unions a legal obligation to use their best endeavours to secure the observance of procedure agreements would be more likely to lead to internal union disruption than to fewer unofficial strikes. In present circumstances, no proposal to impose legal sanctions on individuals who strike in breach of procedure agreements is practicable if it relies on enforcement by the employer. "
That is slightly tangentially connected with the point I am making, but it still applies. The clause as it is now drafted is inadequate, in that it does not refer in this particular place to the voluntary element. Because of the debate that has taken place I do not think I need to persuade your Lordships that this is common ground between us all. What we are all seeking to do is improve: a voluntary industrial relations system. On this side we accept that such systems are capable of improvement, but we are satisfied, and so are all who have taken the trouble to inform themselves fully and thoroughly of this aspect, that this improvement can take place only on a voluntary basis.
The Government will no doubt say: "That is fine, but we need a long-stop of some form of enforceability". The presence of a long-stop would be damaging, would be counter-productive and would be avoided by both sides. Once you have an agreement which is based on a sense of enforceability you destroy the one thing which union members feel obligated by: the sense of a bargain, voluntarily undertaken, upon which they feel an obligation and commitment. There is not additionally a sense of desire to abide by a legally enforceable contract or agreement. That sense of honour is destroyed by the knowledge that there is a legally enforceable agreement and sanctions in the background.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt? No doubt we shall be debating this point at length throughout the Bill. Is the noble Lord really saying that even if the two parties agree that a collective agreement should be enforceable they will still have those feelings to which he is referring?
LORD DIAMOND: I am saying that the agreement must be a voluntary one. The noble Lord must accept that, in my view, the ground has been sullied by the way the Government are treating the whole problem by the assumption of legal enforceability if it is not demonstrated and agreed to be the opposite. So immediately "legal enforceability" are bad words. I cannot join mind with the noble Lord in trying to visualise what would happen if the two sides had, under this Bill, an agreement that the document should be legally enforceable.
So far as the ordinary man or woman is concerned, the ordinary member of the trade union, an agreement voluntarily entered into by them—especially if they have participated in a thoroughly democratic way—is an agreement which brings a sense of obligation which is likely in the event to be more binding than any clause involving legal enforceability. This is a question of individual morality and how the individual looks at it. In my view, that is the way in which he looks at it. There is a long history, which the Donovan Report makes clear, showing why the average trade unionist is anxious about the law, about legal luminaries, the way the courts function and the results of going through the courts. You cannot wash out that history over-night or in a short time.
There are a number of things which contribute to this. What I am saying is this: If the words "voluntarily agreed" were inserted it would show that what the Government are after is what the unions are after, too. I am sure that far more progress would be made and the unions would find this description of the general purpose of the Government far more acceptable. Without the words "voluntarily agreed", especially having regard to some of the things that have been said by spokesmen in the consultative document and in the Bill, and the general propaganda made all round, it is going to be difficult to get a minimum cooperation which would make this Bill of any use at all. Therefore it is extremely important that words of this kind should be introduced.
8.20 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in moving this Amendment, began by quoting the Secretary of

1019
State for Employment. Certainly at first glance the words "voluntarily agreed", which the Amendment would insert into paragraph (b), appear consistent with the Secretary of State's stated conviction that procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes should, wherever possible, be voluntarily agreed—if necessary, with the assistance of conciliation or arbitration. By this means, an agreement may draw on the knowledge and experience of all the parties who will help to implement it; and this sentiment certainly is
Common—
LORD DIAMOND: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sure he was not intending that those listening to him should take the view that the condition which he added into his speech was in the Secretary of State's comment. The Secretary of State did not say anything about "wherever possible". The Secretary of State did not include that reservation at all.
LORD BELSTEAD: Subsequently the Secretary of State made the position clear, which is that we unfortunately are not on all fours with this Amendment.
I was saying a moment ago that the general sentiment is common to both sides. Indeed, one has only to look at the general wording of this paragraph (b)—bearing in mind the second principle in the Bill, "for good industrial relations"—which refers to:
"the principle of…orderly procedures…for the peaceful…settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration"
to appreciate that the principle of the Bill is voluntary agreement. But I must add now "wherever possible".
The reason for this is that in some cases employers and unions have been unable to reach agreement on a procedure. This is largely a symptom of bad industrial relations—yes. But it is fair to claim that the Donovan Commission pointed out that the absence of satisfactory procedure itself sometimes exacerbates the situation. One then has to ask: What is to be done when voluntarism has failed?
The C.I.R. is well equipped, and will be well equipped, to examine a difficult situation and to advise on how satisfactory procedures can be reached. It has already clone so on a number of occa-
1020
sions. But there are situations where even the C.I.R. 's expertise and persuasion just will not suffice. It is our view—and in the light of the noble Lord's intervention just now I wish to make this quite clear—embodied in Part III of the Bill, that where there is no adequate agreement, and little likelihood of reaching one by voluntary means, the law must provide means for protecting the community's interests. Hence the machinery we are setting up for the National Industrial Relations Court—only when it has satisfied itself that voluntary agreement cannot be reached—to make an order enforcing procedures recommended by the C.I.R. This will not be a common occurrence, but for certain otherwise intractable cases it will be the only solution.
May I try to prove to the Committee the sincerity of what is being said by pointing to the detailed provisions of the Bill. May I stress that in the use of the reserve power of the law, it really is true that great stress is still being laid on voluntary acceptance. If the Court agrees that a procedure agreement is nonexistent or defective, then under Clause 35 the Court may refer it to the Corn-mission on Industrial Relations, which in turn is specifically charged to try to gain voluntary agreement between the two sides under Clause 37. Therefore, by the terms of those two clauses, the Bill agrees with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said, which should be the principle in an ideal world. Indeed, throughout this process the part of the Secretary of State as an applicant to the Court is also to consult the other parties and to offer such advice and assistance as may promote agreement.
It has however been declared by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that where the parties cannot agree on procedure, where the advice of the Commission on Industrial Relations is disregarded, then it is counter-productive to require the parties to agree. But, surely, are there not examples of the need for this in other walks of life? I am not a lawyer, but surely is not the monopolies legislation something which contains legal redress to ensure that a monopoly is not continued against the interests of the community?
Your Lordships will see that the words "the general interests of the community" remain in this paragraph under this

1021
Amendment; those are words which are not touched by this Amendment. The Bill holds that it is in the interests of the community not to give the Secretary of State arbitrary powers, but to rely first on consultation; and then only as a last resort to have an order from the N.I.R.C. giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission. In the small minority of cases where orderly procedures are faced with intractable obstacles, it was (I think I am right in saying) the opinion of the Donovan Commission, it has certainly been the opinion of the Trades Union Congress, and it is I am sure the opinion of both sides of your Lordships' House, that then a grave situation is reached. And then there are only two alternatives: either to do nothing more or, alternatively, to give effect to the Commission's recommendations.
I suggest most seriously that the former course must open the way to the rule of the strongest—not, so far as I know, a course which has ever found favour in ibis country, and not a course which I believe the trade union movement favours. The latter way provides a fair gateway, through the Court, which must be satisfied on certain specific tests, to the Commission, which by consultation, advice and conciliation will try to give expert recommendations. I would ask your Lordships to judge which is the fairer procedure in the general interests of the community. And I would ask the Committee to agree that, closely as we shall all want to debate procedure agreements subsequently, this second principle for orderly procedure is something to which in principle at this stage of the Bill your Lordships could agree.
8.27 p.m.
LORD SLATER: The noble Lord in replying to my noble friend Lord Diamond stated that he was not a lawyer. Certain agreements are arrived at with different types of conciliation machinery by different trade unions up and down this country. In how many cases did the draftsman who was responsible for the drafting of this Bill have inquiries made of these trade unions to find out whether, within their conciliation machinery, there were such words as those now proposed by Lord Diamond's Amendment?
I remember that many years ago in the industry with which I was connected we had what were known as "customary"
1022
agreements. They were accepted for years so that people believed that nothing could interfere with the customs of procedure which were created. But then an area general manager came into the district and pointed out that custom was not law. He went into the legal aspects of the position—and he was right. We were able to agree with management certain things which had become custom, but in certain instances this general manager proved that something which was customary did not necessarily have legal force. I refer to arrangements which have operated for many years inside an industry, without difficulty or problems at all, as between management and men. By the insertion of the words that are recommended by my noble friend Lord Diamond we could, in my opinion, obviate positions arising like that which I have endeavoured to depict as to what really arose because of the customary procedure operating within an industry between the two parties.
8.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, found it impossible to understand how we on this side of the Committee could not appreciate that where procedures could not be agreed voluntarily the Government had to insist and to fix the procedures. What I cannot understand is how the noble Lord can think that such a procedure—the compelling of agreement—is going to amount to any kind of agreement at all. In this field, agreement must be voluntarily and willingly arrived at, or it is nothing. That is one of our great difficulties in dealing with this clause, a difficulty that noble Lords who have had no intimate experience of industry cannot understand.
The noble Lord referred to the Monopolies Commission and said there was comparable working there. He did not mention, as an example of what he meant, any kind of procedure in the field discussed by the Bill. He did not mention it because no such compulsory procedure agreement exists. It has to be agreed voluntarily. To me this seems not only to be correct but also abundantly self-evident. It has already been said several times to-day that this Bill will not work, but as we go on and as the Government insist on maintaining that their words, and only their words, will

1023
be right, they make it ever more certain that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not work. The noble Lord has not given any convincing, or indeed reasonable, argument for refusing this Amendment, and I ask him to realise that such procedure agreements as are arrived at in future have got to be voluntary or they are nothing at all. I hope he will accept the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I am most grateful to my noble friends who have helped me with the case I am seeking to make. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I thought he did not answer my case at all. In the first place, I do not agree with what he said, and in the second place, if I did agree with every single word, it would not to any extent at all diminish the necessity for putting in here the word "voluntary".
Let me say first why I did not agree at all with what he said. We are back on the old principle, not of how you get an agreement but of how you get it working and accepted. I do not want to put it in such terms as taking horses to the water and making them drink, because that is an insulting parallel. But if the noble Lord thinks that, because there is machinery whereby you can compel the entering into of an agreement you have therefore succeeded in achieving the co-operation of human beings, I would reply that that is a totally different thing. What we are saying to the Government is that the Secretary of State described the situation adequately and fully in the paragraph which I read out, which was wholly related to voluntary agreement. He said nothing there about a limitation, or about the condition that if you could not get a voluntary agreement then you had to have an enforced one. There was not one syllable about it. He described the philosophy perfectly, and all we are doing in this particular clause is to describe the philosophy. But the noble Lord says that subsequently the Secretary of State thought further about it, and that when he had considered all the detail he decided that there might be a case where —notwithstanding conciliation and an attempt though the good offices of the C.I.R. to get an agreement entered into voluntarily by the two sides—if you could not achieve that, it was essential that
1024
there should be a legally enforced agreement.
I do not accept that, first because it would not work. The only agreement that works is one entered into voluntarily. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will not be persuaded by my words may I repeat the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, at col. 45 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for April 5:
"Industrial peace cannot come that way. Industrial relations are a domain where peace comes only by willing co-operation. "
He did not say that it was only by willing co-operation plus a "longstop" of the courts; he said "only by willing cooperation". My view is that the work of the C.I.R. would be assisted by the removal of the legal "longstop", and the work of the C.I.R. would be embarrassed by the knowledge that if they were not able to persuade people voluntarily to enter into agreements they could be forced to do so at gunpoint. That is not the way to get a satisfactory agreement that will stick. Therefore I say to the noble Lord that he has not persuaded me at all that the exception to which he referred is a justification for a legal "longstop".
Then I turn to the second point, and I say: Supposing the noble Lord were absolutely right; supposing in particular he were absolutely right in saying that the Government intend to use this "long-stop" in the rarest case; that in the normality of cases they intend to use conciliation, persuasion and agreements entered into voluntarily. If that is the case why on earth do they not say so in this particular clause?
This is a clause of principles: it is not a clause to describe what may happen in the one per cent. case; it is a clause to describe what happens in 99 per cent. of the cases. It says that the provisions of this Act shall have effect "in accordance with the following general principles". It is not even a principle; it is a general principle, and the noble Lord is trying to say that because there is a one per cent. exception to the general principle, the general principle should not be put into the Bill. The general principle is voluntary agreement—that is what we are talking about. I have read out what the Secretary of State has said, namely, that this is something we all

1025
want—voluntary agreement, without exception. There is not one reference in paragraph (b) to "voluntarily". It refers to:
"the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures for the peaceful and expeditious settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration."
If that is the main principle, if the Secretary of State has stated that it is the main principle, why on earth should not a reference to that principle be made in the Bill?
If, in addition, the noble Lord wants to say that notwithstanding this general principle "please see the footnote" and then put in a footnote saying "In one per cent. of the cases we reserve our right to do so"—well, he can do that. But I should have thought he would not want to burden the Bill with that kind of language. I should have thought he would be persuaded by the fact that this is a statement only of general principles; that the important general principle is voluntary agreement; that we differ completely over whether an enforced agreement would have any value, but this his view, the Government's view and the Secretary of State's view is that this should be used only in the last resort. I am saying one per cent. only because I do not think it would be helpful to say one-eighth of one per cent., but I should imagine that it would be less than one in a hundred. I hope the noble Lord will have further thoughts about this.
I have indicated by the way I dealt with the previous Amendment that where an Amendment is not an absolutely solid one, and could perhaps be looked at again by both sides, I should be perfectly willing to do that. But nothing have heard so far, nothing my noble friends have heard, gives us the slightest doubt that what the Secretary of State said was right; that it is not in the Bill, that it should be in the Bill and that it would be sheer obstinacy on the part of the Government if they were not prepared to put it in. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that on this occasion we are on very solid ground; we are on common ground, and it is very important when we are on common ground to put something in to show that we are. We shall not be on common ground throughout, but here we are. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I
1026
never threaten anybody, but I am bound to say to the Government that it must be perfectly clear from what I have said, and from the feelings I have and the thought I have given to this, and from everything my noble friends have said, that this is a matter on which we could not possibly do other than divide. However, I do not want to get to that stage.
8.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I can try to clarify the thought here. The noble Lord has been talking about agreements and voluntary agreements, but what his Amendment says, as I read it. is this. We are talking here about the principle of developing and maintaining orderly voluntarily agreed procedures in industry. I wonder whether we have devoted sufficient attention to that point. What we are doing under Clause 1 is to lay on the Secretary of State, the Commission on Industrial Relations, the Chief Registrar, and others, a duty to have regard to these as guiding principles. May I put this point to the noble Lord? I suggest that it is very difficult for us to reach a decision on this point until we have considered the rest of the Bill.
To take an example, what is the Industrial Relations Court to do, having an injunction to have regard to the principle of developing and maintaining orderly and voluntarily agreed procedures in industry, when it is faced with an application from a trade union for an agency shop agreement? This is going to be the procedure, and if there is a ballot then the employer is going to be under a duty to accept this as an agreement; he is going to be under a duty to enter into an agency shop agreement. One cannot say that this is a "voluntarily agreed" agreement, can one? When we come to the approved closed shop procedures, the employer and the union can there enter into agreement to make an application. The other case is the remedial action when procedure agreements are non-existent or defective. I think we ought to have a look at this point because this is a case where either the Secretary of State, after consulting the unions, may make an application, or the employer may make an application, or the trade union may make an application, and the end result of that may be

1027
an order for the procedure agreement. These are things we have to have a look at before we decide to put these words into the Bill at this stage. Quite plainly in regard to these agreements which are to be regarded as if they had been reached by voluntary agreement it would be very difficult for the Industrial Court to give a direction of that kind if we included these words in this place.
I am not sure that I have made myself clear. I am saying that we are here concerned with the procedures. The Bill itself deals very largely with procedures. Some provision is made for examples of agreements being imposed, as it were, on one side or the other, as a result of a ballot, or whatever it may be; and, that being so, it would be unwise at this stage to put these words into the Bill. There may be other cases that I have not covered, but I instance these to illustrate that we are not actually dealing here with the agreements; we are dealing with the procedures and the way in which these procedures are arrived at, whether by voluntary agreement or by procedures under the Bill.
LORD SLATER: Could the noble Lord give an answer to the question I posed in regard to the drafting of this Bill? What inquiries were made of the various trade unions up and down the country in which the conciliation machinery in which this particular reference that is being moved as an Amendment is in operation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Where there are procedures in existence and they are working well, there is nothing in this Bill that will interfere with those. This Bill is designed to encourage and promote agreements and to encourage the promotion of procedures when they do not exist. All we are saying here is that it would be unwise to put these particular words in because of the "longstop" arrangements in the Bill.
LORD BLYTON: Is the Minister not aware that we are here dealing with the guiding principles of this Bill, arriving at the principles on which the courts decide the imposition of penal sanctions and everything? Why should we not put this in here, in the guiding principles, so that the courts can be guided that they should be voluntary, not imposed?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be a mistake to anticipate the Bill by putting this in here. We are not considering at the moment the sanctions but the procedures. Indeed, there are no penal sanctions under the Bill except for failure to send in returns in the usual way, or for sending false returns.
LORD BLYTON: But surely the Minister agrees that Clause 1 is the guiding principle for everything that follows. All we are saying is: take away sanctions; take away all this threatening, and let us have it done voluntarily. That is the simple issue at stake.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Before the noble Lord sits down (if I may use a technicality) he referred to agreements being imposed. I wonder what is the logical or semantic explanation of imposing agreements. One hears of armies surrendering and terms imposed; one hears of "shotgun weddings". But in neither case is it what we understand by agreement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The procedures are imposed, and the Bill at one point says that they will be treated as if they were.
8.50 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to say a word from these Benches on this subject. I think that the introduction of the words "voluntarily agreed" at this point would be rather seriously misleading. The importance of this clause is in the word "orderly", and I do not think that word ought to be weakened in any way. Nobody regrets more than I do the total failure in recent months of the voluntary system, and I hope that the effect of this Bill will be to re-establish many more voluntary agreements. The re-establishment of effective voluntary procedures does not depend on inserting the words "voluntarily agreed" at this point of the Bill. It depends on other clauses. If you were to insert it here, it would look as though there could not be any other procedures, and it would greatly weaken the effect of Article 35 and following. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to think seriously before they vote for this Amendment.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he explain

1029
a little more clearly what he means by total failure of voluntary agreements? This is rather a sweeping statement, which I think is totally unjustified unless he is prepared to produce some figures. If you look at the Donovan Report you find the situation is vastly different.
LORD HANKEY: Perhaps the noble Lord would look at the number of days lost through unofficial disputes; the figure is absolutely enormous. We are losing our markets all over the world, and it is largely due to extremely disorderly conduct in industrial relations. I am not blaming only the trade unions; I think it is partly due to inflation. I want to see strong trade unions, but I do not think we are going to get them by putting in a word which slightly distorts the meaning at a very important point of this Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: I wonder whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House would agree with me that there is no need for my noble friends, or for any other noble Lord to say, "before the noble Lord sits down", because this is the Committee Stage and my noble friend Lord Blyton can continue the discussion.
EARL JELLICOE: I agree.
LORD BLYTON: Can the noble Lord tell me how many days are lost now with 814,000 unemployed?
LORD HANKEY: I agree it is deplorable.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Is it not rather serious when noble Lords make such sweeping, and obviously disturbing statements, which are not calculated to do us any good at all as a nation? Is it not these sweeping assertions, which have been so loosely bandied about in the Press, on television, and by members of the opposite faith, which are so disruptive and have created so much difficulty within industry as a whole? With all the unofficial strikes, we are well down the table compared with most of other industrial nations. Should not noble Lords be much more guarded in their observations in this direction?
On this question of voluntary agreement, we are asking the Government to
1030
save themselves from some of the damage they are doing. From my knowledge of industry, we have a few insurgents talking to a lot of bored people who do the same job day in and day out. If it is a question of seeking some new conciliatory agreements, they will make an extreme demand and they know that if they hold out long enough an agreement will be imposed upon them. This is the rather difficult situation that arises in industry. If, within the terms of the Act, it is laid down specifically that these agreements must be voluntarily entered into, there is no purpose in these insurgent people—and we know them—holding hack for extremely difficult negotiations and difficult procedural agreements. For instance, they can easily say, "We are doing nothing until we have a 50 per cent. workers' share of control". They simply sit back and create trouble, knowing that sooner or later an agreement will be imposed. But delay takes place, and the long delay in establishing good voluntary agreements is one of the most difficult things that we experience in industry.
I think it would be advisable for the Government to he prepared to have another look at this type of thing. I hope they will give us such an assurance, because until we get the principles of the code to go with the preliminary document before us, I think it inadvisable to let the Bill stay as it is. I hope the noble Lord will agree to have another look at this point.
8.57 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the conciliatory manner in which he put forward his proposal, and I understood and took his point. I shall come back to that in a moment. In the meantime, we have had a most stimulating contribution from the Cross-Benches. I can only assume, knowing the distinction of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that he was not present when I opened the discussion, and therefore I owe it to him, in courtesy, to repeat the view of the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State. What the Secretary of State said at column 658 of Hansard of another place on January 18 was:
"We certainly want procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes to be voluntarily

1031
agreed. That is how it should come about, and that is why we stress in the principle that we want settlement to come about by negotiation, by conciliation or by arbitration. In doing so we are making crystal clear that we believe that the proper way to arrive at procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes is by voluntary agreement assisted, where necessary, by conciliation and arbitration."
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said the clause considered procedures; there is not a lot between us, but in fact it is principles. Subsection 1(b) starts off:
"the principle of developing and maintaining orderly"—
et cetera. The principle is the one which the Secretary of State described in the clearest of language without any exception, reservation or limitation of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, I am bound to go back to what I said earlier. It is a very important issue of principle on this side of the Committee. It is something which the Secretary of State has made clear as to the way in which he thinks the principle should be described. The Secretary of State refers also to negotiations, to conciliation, and to arbitration. Those words are still in the clause. Nobody is seeking to remove them. Nobody is seeking to remove the settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation, or
arbitration, with due regard for the general interest of the community.
What we are seeking to do is to put the view of the Government on record. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will know that what even such a distinguished noble Lord as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says in this place—although it ought always to be in the mind of everybody—counts for nothing. What any Minister says counts for nothing. What counts is what is in the Bill. We are not being discourteous to any individual when we point that out. That has been made clear to me a number of times, so I well understand the point. What we are asking is that the Secretary of State's statement of principle should be recorded in the Bill. That is not a lot to ask when we are dealing with an issue which is of profound and fundamental importance to everyone on this side of the House, and on which we are agreed. The noble Lord should agree with us that that statement of principle should be recorded in the Bill itself. I am sorry, but that is the view we take.
9.5 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 118.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs.

Bacon, Bs.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Platt, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Slater, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stonham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Fiske, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fletcher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Burton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Belstead, L.

Byers, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Caldecote, V.

Aldington, L.

Boston, L.

Carrington, L.

Amherst, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Clinton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brecon, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Amory, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Clwyd, L.

Balfour, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Colyton, L.

Barnby, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Bathurst, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Cowley, E.

Gridley, L.

Poole, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hailes, L.

Reading, M.

Crawshaw, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L.
Chancellor.)

Redmayne, L.

Cromartie, E.

Rhyl, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hankey, L,

St. Aldwyn, E.

Davidson, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Helens, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Savile, L.

Derwent, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Digby, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strang, L.

Dudley, E.

Lothian, M.

Strange, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mansfield, E.

Thomas, L.

Essex, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thurlow, L.

Falkland, V.

Merthyr, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Molson, L.

Verulam, E.

Fortescue, E.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Gage, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wigram, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gray, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Yarborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Pender, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.12 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("associations") to end of line 21.
The noble Lord said: I shall keep your Lordships only a very short time indeed on this Amendment. Its purpose is to enable us to say to the Government that the words in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) are clear, intelligible and acceptable up to the words "employers' associations". There is nothing wrong with them at all. The words:
"the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations"
seem to put the matter perfectly well and adequately. I myself cannot see any reason for having one more word. I cannot see that the words after that add anything at all. I can see that the words after that are capable of any number of interpretations. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has widened the topic, because now not only do we have to consider what different interpretations are valid in English but we have to consider every language under the sun. That would be a long and trying job, and I should not wish to delay your Lordships unduly. So what I am saying to the
1034
noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or whoever is going to deal with this matter, is: Would you please be good enough to try to satisfy us why any further words at all should be put there? The argument against the words is that they are liable to be confusing and subject to all sorts of interpretations. The main argument is that they are, in my view, totally unnecessary. I will not delay the Committee any longer. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment causes me some surprise. I should have thought that the noble Lord, having wanted to use the word "democratically", would have welcomed these words, because they seem, in a kind of expanded form, to cover exactly what I should have thought he meant by "democratically"—the words "representative, responsible and effective". I find it difficult to understand why he should want to leave out these words. After all, if we take the word "representative", nowadays the problems of size and complexity are felt by all large organisations. Management is frequently accused of being remote from its employees and of failing to consult them and win them concessions.
On the other hand, there is a danger that union leadership can lose touch with the needs and aspirations of its membership and breed sentiments which are not

1035
acceptable to the rank and file. The consequences of this situation are all the more serious now that the shop floor realises its power and is sometimes prepared to reject agreements reached on its behalf. There is also the danger that a minority of militants, quite unrepresentative of union opinion as a whole, can manipulate a union's electoral machinery to seize and retain power for themselves. That is why we stress the importance of unions being representative and why Clause 63 of the Bill provides safeguards whereby an individual member can play a full part in the union's internal democracy, which is exactly the point which the noble Lord was making earlier through his claim about the right to stand for election to any office in the organisation without any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.
We do not pretend that legislation can by itself ensure that union leaders will be representative of their members, but all the same it is a cause which this Bill helps to further and which is rightly included in Clause 1 as one of the desirable things to promote with a view to good industrial relations. The same applies to the word "responsibly". We have discussed this word already, and my noble and learned friend clearly understands it and I think that, despite everything that was said here, everybody has a good idea what we mean by a responsible citizen and how a responsible citizen would behave.
As to the word "effective", I cannot see why that should raise any disagreement. I should have thought it added quite a lot. It does not necessarily follow that, because workers are organised in independent trade unions, they are necessarily effective, so it is a good idea to encourage the promotion of good industrial relations through organisations which are effective. The Opposition certainly would not seek ineffective trade unions. Indeed, the professed aims of the trade union development scheme which featured in the Labour Government's final Industrial Relations Bill were to increase efficiency and thereby the effectiveness of trade unions. We share that objective, although we do not adopt the same means of achieving it.
1036
As an illustration of our approach I would mention Clause 54, which requires employers to disclose to registered trade unions information needed for collective bargaining. Our aim is to place the employer and the trade union more nearly on a footing of equality as regards information, and the noble Lord may remember that I made a special point of this, in speaking on Second Reading, as one of the ways in which good relations can be promoted and the individual worker can be encouraged to know what is going on and take a real interest in the success of the undertaking. I hope I have said enough to convince noble Lords that these words are not redundant and therefore should not be disposed of.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question or two. Who is to decide whether people are:
"…so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers"?
To some of us there is a nasty ring in those words. The first part of paragraph (c) reads:
"the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations …".
I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Diamond that those words seem to be abundantly clear. But who is to interpret the last three lines? Some of us have long memories. If my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield were present I am sure that there would spring to his mind the Nottingham Spencers' union of 1926 and 1927. I have often heard him remark about that, even today. That could be interpreted to be "representative, responsible ". It certainly was not independent. One has heard of the Foremen's Mutual Benefit Society. That was not an independent trade union, not even a representative one; and there are others.
I was therefore amazed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when questioned, replying that the leaders of the trade unions lose touch with and lose the confidence of the rank-and-file members. That seems to be a popular view often expressed sensationally by newspapers, television and other media. Those of us who have been in the trade union movement all our lives know that there are

1037
sufficient safeguards against individuals who get a little swollen headed. We know that they are usually dealt with. It is an extravagant use of language to talk of loss of confidence or losing touch with the rank-and-file. Trade union leaders are governed by an executive committee and subject to periodical elections. That committee does not lose touch with its rank and file, because the individual members know that if this were to happen they would lose their seats at the next election. This kind of thinking does not do any good to the Government or to industrial relations.
The retention of these words will lead to suspicion being developed; because now, for the first time, we hear of agency shops. This is something new to the trade union movement. We know of closed shops; but in connection with agency shops, particularly as the Bill is now drafted, one can visualise that a certain amount of rigging may take place. Under the terms of the Bill as it now stands, it can be argued that such a shop is representative, but workers will hold a completely different view of that interpretation. So long as these words are retained in the clause there is the possibility and feasibility of suspicion in the minds of the workers. The clause contradicts itself, and I suggest that we shall avoid a great deal of confusion in the future by adopting the suggestion of my noble friend to leave out the words from "associations" to the end of line 21.
9.25 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Some time ago we had a discussion on one word. Now we have eighteen words and we are trying to explain what each word means. I am beginning to think that we have more words than are needed to explain more than the Government know. What are the words?:
"…so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers."
That is preceded by
"…free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations."
What more could you possibly want? There must be some reason for additional words, as every lawyer knows. Everyone who has been associated with industry knows that sooner or later there is some small type written in somewhere
1038
in the marginal notes, designed to try to get people to sign a contract. We have already had a discussion about the small type which will come along. No industrialist would agree to sign a contract if he knew that things were to be inserted in small type after he had signed it.
We talk of losing touch with the unions. Surely the provisions in this Bill cannot work unless the unions work them. The limelight will be on the unions; they will be in the headlines and if anything goes wrong the unions will be blamed. Unless the unions are willing to work its provisions, this Bill will fail. The unions have made clear that these regulations, which are distasteful to them, will not help to produce industrial relations on the lines that the Government want. I say to the Government, "Cannot you see that what you are doing is pressing people beyond a certain point?". It is not for me to advise the Conservative Party, but I would say to them, "If you assume that every trade unionist is a member of the Labour Party and votes for the Labour Party, you are very much mistaken. You are damaging yourselves in the eyes of Conservative trade unionists for something which will not help the Bill at all." I should like to support the Amendment, and I urge the Government to take a more enlightened view of Amendments which are being proposed tonight.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I wish to support the Amendment. Here again the Government are showing their hand, and we on this side of the Committee are not taken in. Nor are we very amused. By retaining these words we should put into the minds of people, who have no proper idea, knowledge or understanding of the way in which industrial relations are carried on, the idea that some unions are unrepresentative, irresponsible and ineffective. This anti-union bias is threaded throughout the whole of the Bill and I think that it will poison industrial relations. That is why we on this side of the Committee object to it and support the Amendment.
LORD BYERS: I do not understand why, regarding a clause which deals equally with employers and workers, there should be any accusation of antiunion bias. If I thought that this Bill

1039
was anti-union I should not be giving to it the limited support which we on these Benches are giving to it. I cannot help feeling that we are wasting a lot of time. Here is something which merely makes clear the fact that we want employers' associations and trade unions to be representative, to be effective and to be responsible. I can see nothing against that at all. If it had said that the trade unions must be responsible and effective, yes; but it refers to both, and we know that there are employers' associations which are ineffective and irresponsible at times. Surely it is a balance that we ought to keep here. I see no reason why the Labour Party should feel that they are being picked on in this petty way. If I thought that that were true I should be strongly against the Bill, but I feel we are importing an emotion into this matter which should not be there.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Byers. The reason I am in favour of the Bill is that I think it will make the unions much stronger, and I want to see them much stronger. I have no doubt that that will be the effect, as it has been in some foreign countries where somewhat similar, or analogous, provisions obtain. We have to live down a barrier of heritage in our law which has tended to regard unions as conspiracies. In the years in which we live, this is totally ridiculous. I do not see how we are going to get over this problem unless we keep in the declaratory part of the new Bill something which says what unions are and should be. I like these words and I hope that, on reflection, the Opposition will feel that they are less damaging than has been claimed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FER RARD: With reference to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, may I point out that Mrs. Castle's Bill would have been very anti this Amendment, because that Bill of 1970 went at considerable length into various schemes for improving the trade unions—superannuation schemes and other schemes like that. The Donovan Report was also against this Amendment. I am speaking only from memory, and I really
1040
cannot remember now, but the Donovan Report definitely suggested that the unions must be made responsible, and it went on at great length about how that should be done.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: If this Amendment is to go through, I would point out to your Lordships that Clause 65 will need to be strengthened in order to make the position clear and prevent any little organisations from being allowed to register as trade unions in the special register under Clause 82. I am sure that we do not want to have all these tiny unions. Unless we have union representation and unless the unions are responsible and effective bodies the very fine unions we have in this country are going to be considerably weakened. It means that when there is some discontent, we shall have small bodies breaking away. I feel that the wording of this clause is essential as a protection for properly organised union affairs, and I am surprised that the Amendment has been put forward.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I had composed a minute ago a speech which would have taken 20 seconds. As another noble Lord was rising simultaneously may I make another one impromptu? All I want to say is that the only good and short speech ever attributed to me in Hansard was in tact made the other day not by me, but by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham of St. Marylebone. It consisted of the one word "Yes". I do not think I can claim credit for that; but I should like to take this last opportunity, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and before the noble Lord replies, of saying (to the speech of my noble friend Lord Byers) "Yes".
9.35 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I am bound to say that I am completely at a loss when the noble Viscount asked permission to get up and make his final speech, but I am sure that it is my responsibility to offer my condolences. First of all, I want to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard for what he said. He is always very helpful in his interventions and I want to assure him of the sympathy of the whole House on having to speak from memory when he

1041
had momentarily lost his memory. It is a predicament which I share with the noble Viscount, as he will recollect, because on one occasion I was speaking from notes and momentarily lost them.
To be a little more serious about the clause which we are seeking to amend, I would say first to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whose support we welcome and cherish, that there is no doubt from the speeches made on Second Reading that a large number of extremely able, intelligent and responsible Members of your Lordships' House take the view that this Bill is to be supported because it curbs the power of the unions.
LORD BYERS: It is not our view.
LORD DIAMOND: I am not for one second attributing it to the noble Lord, The noble Lord asked, "Why do the Labour Party take the view that this Bill is in some sense aimed at the unions?" The short answer is: because a number of noble Lords for whom I have the deepest respect have said that they are sincerely convinced that the unions have too much power; that they are an estate of the Realm which has outgrown itself, and that in common with our history, where this has happened to any number of other organizations—including, one noble Lord said, your Lordships' House—the time has come for a reduction in the power of that particular estate of the Realm; therefore the purpose of the Bill as they read it (I am not saying what our view is) should be supported because it will curb the power of the unions. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, must not ask me to disbelieve what able men in your Lordships' House say with sincerity and conviction. I accept that that is their view.
LORD BYERS: Would not the noble Lord agree with me that it is his duty, as a leader in this field, to disillusion these people, and to try to get real industrial relations on a mutual basis and not on a confrontation basis?
LORD DIAMOND: Of course I do. That is what I am seeking to do the whole time; that is the progress I am seeking to make. I share the view of all those noble Lords who expressed
1042
those sentiments, that the purpose of this Bill is to curb the power of the unions. That is as plain as a pikestaff. But there is no need for me to express my view when those who support the Bill have said so with such clarity. I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that that must be at the back of our minds when we consider these things.
LORD BYERS: I do not want to interrupt too much, but I can say that the noble Lord will get our support on a number of his Amendments, and we shall look for his support for ours. But if we are going to do it against this background, we are not going to make as much progress together in improving the Bill as we ought to do.
LORD DIAMOND: We shall seek to be very objective, and to have regard to the words that are used and the provisions of the clauses. I am quite sure that when we come to Amendment No. 19, on Clause 3, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Byers, Lord Henley, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Diamond, we shall probably find ourselves in agreement.
I turn back again to Clause 1(1) (c). The first two and a half lines express a view which we hold with deep sincerity and profound conviction. The words are:
"the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations …"
That covers both the unions and the employers' associations. We regard that as a good and adequate description of the principle which ought to apply. I would say to noble Lords opposite that, so adequate is that, that if the noble Lord insists on adding anything to it, let us have it in a separate Bill, because this expression, in our view, is not only correct, but also perfectly adequate. It is a sentiment to which we are devoted, and we should not wish to see it hedged around by any other words.
Then, if the noble Lord wishes me to deal with the other words, he is right in saying that the word "representative "connotes something of the word "democratically", which we were considering earlier. Then he went on to say there

1043
was no difficulty about "responsible". I do not think I can forgive him for saying that. I could forgive anybody who was not in the Chamber, but the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been listening to every word, so far as I am aware, and he has been in the Chamber almost as long as myself, and I have been here all the time. He must have heard the debate, and I must support his own Back-Benchers. It is not fair in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, to say that everybody is clear about the meaning of "responsible". The noble Earl was not clear, even after the most pointed declaration by his Leader, and nothing could be more unclear than that.
EARL JELLICOEI hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but he should not pluralise my noble friend Lord Bathurst in this way.
LORD DIAMOND: I am not accustomed to your Lordships' proceedings and, being a mere Baron myself, I did not know to what extent an Earl counted for two or three. I am quite sure that the noble Earl was only voicing a sentiment which was felt by many others on those Benches. We all know that when you are in the process of a very long and difficult Bill which a Government are putting forward frequent interventions from Back-Benchers are not all that welcome. Therefore I am quite sure that it would be reasonable to deduce that one very often repeated expression of doubt in the face of a noble Lord's Leader represents a fair measure of doubt on those Benches.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I remind the noble Lord, that my noble friend Lord Bathurst was at great pains to say that his difficulty was over the word "responsibly", not the word "responsible" which is in the paragraph which is covered by this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I did not quite hear what the noble Earl said. I think he said that his noble friend was concerned about "responsibly". That is absolutely right. I did not entirely follow the noble Earl's difficulty in moving from "responsible" to what he called the "adjective", "responsibly", but I did
1044
not think it appropriate for me to intervene at that time.
It is perfectly clear from what has been said in another place, and what has been said here, that there is considerable difficulty in interpreting "responsible", especially in this context. This is a context of organisation. I should have thought (and I should be grateful for what help we can get from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor) that when you have regard to the word "responsible" in this context it can have only its first and natural meaning of responsible to those who instruct it, or give it authority to act.
This is a question of organisation, This is not a question of acting responsibly in the other sense, of being morally accountable for one's actions. One is dogged by the problem that "responsible" has these two meanings. In the other case we were left with the impression that both of them were to be included, that is to say in subsection (1) (a). Here only the second one, I should have thought, was involved. But one just does not know. Therefore there is doubt about it.
As to "effective", that is something which cannot be regarded with satisfaction on this side. A whole host of interpretations could be put on what is in the mind of the Government as to achieving effectiveness. I should have thought we could leave out the word "representative" and, if necessary, put it in somewhere else. We should leave out the word "responsible" because it is already admitted to be a considerable difficulty. The word "effective" we have not discussed at length, but it is obviously going to be a very difficult word to interpret. But, above all, the first two lines are adequate and full and respected in themselves, and therefore I should have thought that the Government ought to meet our point and say, "Well, we will accept the Amendment. We will omit the last three lines and, if necessary, at a later stage, having thought about it and seen how we get on with the Bill, we will put something back again on Report stage." I therefore hope that that will be acceptable to the Government.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 120.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Bacon, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stonham, L.

Diamond, L.

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

Stow Hill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fiske, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Milverton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Denham, L.

Molson, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Aldington, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Amherst, E.

Dudley, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Eccles, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balfour, E.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood. Bs.

Platt, L.

Barrington, V.

Essex, E.

Poole, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ferrers, E.

Reading, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrier, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rhyl, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gage, V.

Rothermere, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Glasgow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Helens, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Brecon, L.

Gray. L.

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman. V.

Grenfell. L.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk. E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sherfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (Lord
Chancellor.)

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Strang, L.

Byers, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Strange, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hives, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Carrington, L.

Hood, V.

Terrington, L.

Clinton, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L.Privy Seal)

Teviot, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Thomas, L.

Colyton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir. L.

Conesford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Lothian, M.

Verulam, E.

Cowley, E.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wigram, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mansfield, E.

Windlesham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Yarborough, E.

De La Warr, E.

Merthyr, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES in-formed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 23 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  E. E. C. ASSOCIATED STATES AND MOVEMENT OF LABOUR
  E. E. C. ASSOCIATED STATES AND MOVEMENT OF LABOUR