Sitting of 2 August 1971

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
TORBAY CORPORATION (NO. 2) BILL
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
LONDON TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
SCUNTHORPE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Bills read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Pakistan (Arms Supplies)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the British arms shipments to Pakistan.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): None, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 26th April.—[Vol. 816, c. 29.]
    Mrs. Short: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply but does he not agree that there is certain action which he would take, which should have have been taken long ago; namely, to bring about a political solution to this tragic conflict? Does he not think that he should take the initiative to bring together the major parties concerned with arms shipments to Pakistan, in order to see that no more shipments take place, as a first step towards reaching such a political agreement?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It must be for the other countries concerned to decide their own arms policy.
    Mrs. Short: Then it goes on for ever.
    Mrs. Shore: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that on a matter of this kind it might be useful to consult one of our principal allies, the United States, to see whether we cannot together agree on a policy of withholding arms from Pakistan?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.

    European Economic Community
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations will be necessary under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should any of the present European Free Trade Assciation members not obtain full membership of

    1057
    the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Of the present members of the European Free Trade Association, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway have applied for full membership of the European Community.
    The other members of E.F.T.A. are seeking arrangements with the Community which would vary, country by country, depending on their political, economic and social position; and they are at present engaged in discussions with the Community.
    Any such arrangements, when concluded, would normally be considered by the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in the light of Article XXIV.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there will have to be negotiations? If there will have to be, has he taken note of the serious increase in protectionist sentiment in the United States recently and especially the Congressional sentiment, towards trade and agriculture policy? Does he have anything to say about that?
    Mrs. Rippon: The position of the United States is another matter. In the course of all these negotiations a number of things happen which are relevant to G.A.T.T. All that will happen, in the normal course of events, is that when the agreement is concluded we shall report the matter to G.A.T.T.
    Mr. Marten: If we do not join the Common Market, what agreement shall we seek with Common Market countries?
    Mr. Rippon: That is a hypothetical question, which is not likely to arise.
    Mr. Healey: To revert to the original Question, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the speech by Senator Humphrey in London last weekend, and earlier speeches made by the American Secretary of the Treasury and the American Secretary of State? Since Her Majesty's Government—I understand—are now being consulted by the members of the Common Market on important
    1058
    major issues of common concern, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will press for a reduction in the present discrimination operating in the Common Market against external countries, in view of the real risk that this could lead to American retaliation and grave damage to British trade?
    Mr. Rippon: We have been in close touch with the American Administration. I have seen the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that successive American Administrations have wholeheartedly supported Britain's application to join the Community, and have wished to see enlargement of the Community for many reasons. There are a number of matters that concern them about which we keep in touch. It is also fair to bear in mind that the Community is less protectionist than many other countries are.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions there are in the countries of the European Economic Community on participation in pools operated in Great Britain; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in negotiations for entry into the Common Market to remove such restrictions.
    Mr. Rippon: A number of such restrictions are applied, varying from country to country. They do not present a difficulty in so far as our accession to the Community is concerned and are not, therefore, a matter for negotiation.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that over 12,000 people are employed on the Merseyside in the pools business? Will it be possible to come to some agreement with the Common Market countries, rather on the lines of a double taxation agreement, whereby a proportion of our pools excise duty goes back to the country of origin, so that our balance of payments and employment on Merseyside may both benefit?
    Mr. Rippon: Our present arrangements outside the Community will not be affected by our joining. As regards the other matters which my hon. Friend raises, we shall, clearly, be in a better

    1059
    position, once we are inside the Community, to raise questions of that kind, all of which, I have no doubt, will be for the benefit of his constituents.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to hold a Ministerial meeting with the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: The next Ministerial meeting will be on 21st September.
    Mr. Marten: When my right hon. and learned Friend started negotiations with the Six, was it on the basis that if terms were agreed and put before the House the Government should make them the question of a vote of confidence, and, following from that, was it also asked by the Six that there should be broad agreement between the two main parties, and did they ever define—if not, could he ask the Ministers to define—what they expect by the wholehearted support of the House?
    Mrs. Rippon: None of those matters was raised with the Ministers; nor are they likely to be.
    Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, after that meeting, they should consider meeting their equivalent Ministers in the Commonwealth to discuss many of the points which must arise from the next meeting?
    Mr. Rippon: There are all sorts of discussions taking place at all sorts of levels all the time. I have no doubt that these will continue.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the Commonwealth have now made official representations to Her Majesty's Government against details of the terms agreed for United Kingdom entry to the European Economic Community; and if he will make a tour of those countries before final decisions on entry to the European Economic Community are taken.
    Mr. Rippon: No Commonwealth Government have expressed formal opposition to our joining the European Economic
    1060
    Community. Australia has expressed concern about the effect on its exports of some of the details of the arrangements negotiated. Some anxieties have also been expressed by India and Pakistan.
    Mr. Hamilton: How many Commonwealth Governments have come out specifically and positively in favour of the terms of entry that have been negotiated? In answer to the second part of the Question, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that he will consult the Commonwealth Governments more closely on the implications of the Immigration Bill as it affects the free movement of labour of Commonwealth citizens into the country?
    Mr. Rippon: Various Commonwealth Governments have expressed their views at various times. I think that most of them have made it clear that they understand the reasons why we are applying, and many of them have specifically welcomed our application. There are regular meetings with the High Commissioners of the Commonwealth both in Brussels and in London. We are concerned, although we have not settled it yet, about the definition of "United Kingdom national" in the context of the movement of labour, and we are in consultation, and will remain in consultation, about that aspect.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very great concern felt in Northern Ireland about the recently announced agreement that the movement of labour will be renewed by the Common Market countries after three years? Is he aware that this might affect the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland and lead to an upsetting of the political balance? Will he try to obtain better terms with respect to safeguarding employment in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rippon: That is taking the matter a little wider than the Question on the Order Paper. It would perhaps be more appropriate for me to deal with the point when we reach another Question later on.
    Mr. Mayhew: Did I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Australian Government had made no formal complaint at all? Is he aware

    1061
    that broadcasts made by an Australian spokesman in this country on the subject created an unfavourable impression not only on British viewers but back home in Australia?
    Mr. Rippon: The point I was making was that Australia, like other Commonwealth countries, has never expressed opposition to our entry but has expressed anxieties about the effects of our entry upon certain specific exports. I believe that we have got an agreement which is much more comprehensive and effective than perhaps they fully understood. This matter was raised in last week's debate and I have indicated our willingness to consider with the Australian Government commodity by commodity where they feel it appropriate and where they feel that there is any threat of severe disruption to trade in any agricultural products.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he remains satisfied that the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community will be completed in time for the announced timetable for parliamentary action; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: The progress in our negotiations with the Community gives no grounds to anticipate any adjustment to the arrangements for parliamentary consideration outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 643–5.]
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that negotiations on New Zealand are virtually finished and that the New Zealanders are satisfied that their interests will be protected for at least a generation? Will he also confirm that the fishery negotiations will take place at the next meeting of Ministers?
    Mr. Rippon: I am satisfied that the arrangements made for New Zealand are of unlimited duration, and I hope that they will continue for as long as necessary. The question of fisheries is difficult and complex. We may make progress on 21st September, but whatever happens we must go on until we reach a satisfactory arrangement.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the document, "Britain and Europe", contains no table showing relative social security benefit increases in Common Market countries comparable with the table showing increases in average incomes; and whether he will arrange for such a table to be included in subsequent editions.
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. There is obviously a limit to the number of tables and diagrams which can be included in a 16-page publication.
    Mrs. Lewis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the taxpayers are paying for all this propaganda and that if they are paying for the false propaganda which is being put out, they would also like some facts and figures? Could the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster publish a supplementary White Paper to show all the necessary Orders in Council which the House will not be able to amend in any way and which will have to be agreed in toto, so that the House and the country may know what will have to happen?
    Mr. Rippon: I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for more information to be published. I wish that we could have found room for this table, because it would have shown the British people that by and large social security benefits are rather larger in the Community than they are here.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) very quickly moved from the subject of social security benefits when he found that such a table would be very much to the advantage of the argument of those who wish us to enter the European Economic Community? Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the possibility of producing another White Paper with all these facts so that one may show how clear is the case for our entry?
    Mr. Rippon: We will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) cares to look at that excellent publication by the Community, "The Community

    1063
    and the Common Man", he will see a great deal of useful information supporting our entry.
    Mrs. Spearing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a table of increases in average incomes is somewhat vague and that it would have been better to show a table of incomes for comparable occupations? Will he consider that as a supplement to the information already published?
    Mr. Rippon: It is important that it should be understood that the increase in real incomes in the Community in recent years has been far higher than that in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hayhoeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations over British membership of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of the European Economic Community negotiations.
    Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to my statement of 14th July and to my answer on 26th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act.—[Vol. 821, c. 491–5; Vol. 822, c. 21–2.]
    Mrs. Hayhoe: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the significant progress in recent weeks, perhaps as a result of debates in the House and outside, has been the highly significant and decisive swing in public opinion in favour of our entry into the Common Market?
    Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in what he says about public opinion. It is simply that the more people that know about the Community, the more they are anxious for us to go in.
    Mrs, St. John-Stevas: Has my right hon. and learned Friend observed that this massive swing in public opinion in favour of entry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, for the first time there are more people in favour than there are
    1064
    against—has occurred since the Leader of the Opposition came out against it? Can my right hon. and learned Friend judge whether this concatenation of events is purely coincidental?
    Mr. Rippon: That is not a matter for me. These are troubled waters in which I do not choose to delve at the moment.
    Mr. J. T. Price: As a number of important issues have been swept under the carpet because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to bring a cocked-up agreement to the House some weeks ago, can he tell the House what diplomatic activities will take place as soon as the House goes into recess on, for instance, the liquidation of the sterling balances, the abandonment of sterling as a reserve currency and the fishing agreements, all of them awkward questions? Are we to be given a report in the autumn about what will have been going on in the chancellories in the interim before we vote on the matter?
    Mr. Rippon: Some of these matters, not that concerning sterling, will come up in the negotiations again. There will be another Ministerial meeting on 21st September and I have no doubt that the subject of fisheries will be considered, although I cannot guarantee that we shall settle the matter then. Far from agreements having been cocked up, to use the hon. Gentleman's elegant expression, they have been carefully considered and always reported in full to the House.
    Mrs. Healey: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's enthusiasm for giving the House and the public all possible information on this subject, can he explain to the House why the Government have suppressed the figure for the foreign exchange costs arising out of tariff changes on industrial goods, considering the fact that he gave the figure of £200 million to £300 million in December?
    Mr. Rippon: None of these matters arose in the negotiations, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The negotiations were concerned with the contribution to the Community budget, and that I dealt with on 16th December. There were then, derived from the White

    1065
    Paper of 1967, certain figures covering a number of matters, including tariff changes and changes in food import prices. One of these elements is quantified in the White Paper. The two balancing elements of the tariff changes due to changes of Commonwealth preference and the tariff advantages which will come from joining the Community are not quantifiable, and I think that everyone has recognised that. It has been very difficult for a long time.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the Minister gave the House a figure in December of £200 million to £300 million and that it was suppressed, contrary to his own advice, by the Cabinet, and that he confirmed this figure privately as recently as 24th June?
    Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge, naturally, of what advice I gave to the Cabinet, and it certainly would not follow the lines he has suggested. I have made it perfectly clear, and what I said on 16th December is on the record. It contains two elements, one of which has been quantified in the White Paper.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part a proposed British commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme has played in the negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: None, Sir. Defence matters have at no time been an issue in the negotiations for enlargement of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Latham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman assert that the fact that the billion-dollar European Defence Improvement Programme was agreed upon during the period of the Common Market negotiations is pure coincidence? Has his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary read the speech of the Minister of State for Defence at Munich in February in which he spoke of moving towards a political and defence union in Europe? Does this not mean a common weaponry and a consequent passing of British nuclear weapons into German and French hands, among others?
    Mr. Rippon: It had nothing to do with the negotiations to enter the Community.
    1066
    The hon. Gentleman can say it is coincidence in the sense that the agreement would have been reached in any event.
    Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are those of us who are disturbed that defence has played no part in these discussions with the Community so far and who hope that such discussions will start before long?
    Mr. Rippon: They will not arise in these negotiations, although, of course, we have interests in European defence, and one hopes that there are many aspects of European defence which may be assisted as a result of the enlargement of the Community. That does not follow from the negotiations.
    Mr. Shore: How can the Chancellor assert that it has nothing to do with defence policy when the White Paper asserts again and again that Britain's security as well as her prosperity would be increased if we were to join? Is this not yet another area in which the benefit of a detailed and probing Select Committee examination would be felt by the House and the country?
    Mr. Rippon: Even in a Select Committee people would have to ask the right questions.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no need to pussyfoot about it? Surely the object of our European policy should be to establish a European defence in a situation where the Americans want to leave and the Russians show no signs of doing so? Will he and the Government: draw the conclusions and not be afraid to tell the British nation?
    Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend appreciates, all that I am doing is answering a question about what part defence matters played in the negotiations. The answer is "none". That is not to say that European defence is not an important issue and that other of my right hon. Friends cannot deal with it and have not dealt with it from time to time.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman then deny, in the light of what he has said, that the Prime Minister has been pursuing plans for some time to create a joint Anglo-French nuclear command, which would

    1067
    be a third nuclear command? [Interruption.] I know that it has the support of some hon. Members opposite. Would the Minister admit that this plan is still in the mind of the Prime Minister and that the Government have failed to put any of these ideas before the House in the debate on entry to the E.E.C.? [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in the Chamber. I was asking his right hon. and learned Friend whether he has now given up the idea developed in the Godkin Lectures of an Anglo-French nuclear command. If he has not, are not the Government guilty of suppressing some of the essential elements in the whole negotiations over entry to the E.E.C.? Should there not be an additional White Paper on this problem before the House takes a vote on 28th October?
    Mr. Rippon: These questions have been put from time to time to the Prime Minister and he has answered them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have played no part in the negotiations.
    Mr. Healey: Returning to the original Question, would the Chancellor of the Duchy add to the dismay of his hon. Friends below the Gangway by admitting that the Government made no contribution to the European Defence Improvement programme until they had an assurance from the West German Government that they would meet the cost?
    Mr. Rippon: That has nothing whatever to do with this question.

    Uganda (Arms Supplies)
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the request of the President of Uganda for the supply of arms.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): It is not Government policy to disclose details of arms sales or prospective arms sales to individual countries.
    Mr. Lyon: In view of the publicity which was given to his request by the President when he was here, would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to make clear that at the moment it would be wrong for this Government to be involved in a dispute between two friendly members of the Commonwealth
    1068
    in a situation in which the allegations are at least debatable, if not unproven?
    Mr. Godber: We have no wish to be involved in a dispute between two members of the Commonwealth in this way. Britain has been a traditional supplier of arms to many of its ex-dependent territories, including Uganda. I do not think that it would be right to comment on this particular issue.

    Chinese People's Republic
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Chinese People's Republic.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he now proposes to alter the level of diplomatic representation in Peking.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our relations with China have shown a recent improvement which we welcome and we are anxious to make further progress. Discussions about an exchange of ambassadors, which have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the People's Republic of China, were resumed early this year and are continuing.
    Mr. Allaun: May I now repeat to the Foreign Secretary the questions which I put to him on 26th April, which he then said he would consider? First, will he arrange a Ministerial visit to China? Second, could we now reach some agreement about the appointment of an ambassador? Third, shall we take the initiative at the United Nations for the admission of China by a simple majority this autumn?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should very much like to visit China at some time, if that were convenient to the Chinese and to ourselves here. As regards the resolutions at the United Nations which are likely to be moved, I very much doubt that an important Question resolution will be moved this year; I think that we shall be faced with another resolution of a different kind, as yet unframed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have consistently voted for the Albanian resolution to seat Communist China, and I

    1069
    should add that there is only one seat for one country in the organisation.
    Mr. Lane: What my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon will be widely welcomed. Can he confirm that between now and the autumn Her Majesty's Government will be ready to take any further initiatives which may open up as the situation develops outside or inside the United Nations?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir; we shall study with great care what form resolutions may take at the United Nations. I have stated the guide lines on which we shall work.
    Mr. Healey: Apart from the question whether China's representation is considered an important matter—I welcome the hint given by the Foreign Secretary on that—I understand that there is one other major obstacle to the restoration to full diplomatic relations with China; namely, Her Majesty's Government's maintenance of a consulate on Taiwan. Is a change in this position contemplated?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the consulate is not accredited to the Government of Taiwan. At the moment I would rather not add to what I said just now.

    India and Pakistan
    Mr. Shoreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he intends to have with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the refugee situation in East Bengal.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the refugee situation in East Bengal.
    Mr. Woodhouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a proposal at the United Nations for a United Nations presence in East Parikstan.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a proposal at the United Nations for a United Nations presence in and adjoining East Pakistan.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the proposal to establish United Nations observers in Indian territory adjacent to East Pakistan and within East Pakistan, respectively; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The situation created by the refugees from East Pakistan, who, according to Indian estimates, now number over 7 million, continues to give cause for concern, and the Government support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations through the High Commissioner for Refugees to establish conditions under which their return might be effected. The Pakistan Government have already admitted a United Nations presence to East Pakistan, which includes a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have been in close touch with the Indian and Pakistan Governments about the situation, but the question of the repatriation of refugees is one which I believe is best handled through the humanitarian Agencies of the United Nations.
    Mrs. Shore: Right hon. and hon. Members will be glad to hear that United Nations observers have been allowed in, but, in the light of his own analysis of the causes of the refugee problem, which, as the Foreign Secretary has told the House, is due mainly to the repression carried out by the West Pakistan Army in East Bengal, and given that this repression is continuing and the flow of refugees is increasing, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that other efforts and other representations directly to the Pakistan Government are needed if we are to see some improvement in this dangerous and tragic situation?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, Her Majesty's Government are in contact privately with the Pakistan Government, and I think that this is the best way to conduct our relations. As regards dealing publicly with this matter, the Pakistan Government have accepted that there should be United Nations observers on the spot and that they should help to repatriate refugees. If we can get people on the spot who will help to

    1071
    repatriate the refugees and see that they are redistributed to their homes without fear, that will be a beginning, at least, of reversing the flow.
    Mr. Prentice: In the course of the private contacts to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will he make inquiries about the safety of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and representations for his release? Will he make clear also the view which I am sure is held by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, that the only possible peaceful solution of this terrible tragedy lies in a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Bengal, and that the only practical approach to this is by negotiations with Sheikh Mujib and the Awami League, which won such an overwhelming victory in the election?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said again and again, the political settlement which is reached in Pakistan—we profoundly hope that it will be reached as soon as possible—must be a matter for the Pakistanis themselves. No other country outside can have any influence on this. I think it better not to discuss the results of private representations which we have made about either Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or other questions.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Since it is now, and has long been, clear that the problems of both restoring stable conditions and dealing with the refugees are beyond the capacity of the present resources available to any single Power, whether Pakistan or any other, is it not time that international action was taken on a much more substantial scale than is represented merely by the presence of United Nations observers?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We would hope so. The proposal made by the Commissioner for Refugees is that there should be a substantial number of U.N. personnel who will be responsible for the reception of refugees on the Pakistan side. The hope was also expressed that there might be a similar number of U.N. personnel on the Indian side of the frontier. So far, although there has been no formal communication to this effect, the Indian Government are not attracted by the idea.
    Sir F. Bennett: In view of my right hon. Friends last words, can he confirm
    1072
    that the only hitch to the successful and effective deployment of the U.N. personnel along that dangerous border is the lack of the same sort of affirmative response from India as there has already been from Pakistan?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It must be for the Indian Government to make their own formal representations in the matter. Their public attitude is that they are not attracted by the proposition.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that India should publicly accept the observers, because many disinterested and objective people around the world feel that the infiltration of unfriendly elements into East Pakistan is hindering the peaceful settlement and stability in the area which all well-intentioned people so heartily long for?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have been concerned with rather a different type of U.N. personnel. Observers to watch the frontier would be another matter. The personnel of whom I am talking are to help repatriate the refugees, to receive them on the Pakistan side of the border, and to see that they are safe in their homes.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10,000 to 30,000 refugees are still leaving East Pakistan every day, and that it is necessary for action to be taken on the cause? The cause, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is the continuing repression of the population in East Bengal by the Army. Is it not necessary that urgent action should be taken in the Security Council to deal with the cause of the situation, which is the continuing genocide in East Bengal? Is that not the reason why the Security Council and the United Nations were set up? Should not the right hon. Gentleman use that vehicle to deal with the situation?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of genocide there must first be an accusation, and that must be dealt with first in the courts in the country concerned. Then it must be dealt with in a court under the auspices of the United Nations; but no such court has been set up. Therefore, any accusations of genocide fall on barren ground.
    Mr. Jessel: Has there been any reduction in the rate of outflow of refugees from Pakistan into India over the past month?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that it is fair to say that there has been a reduction but that there are still considerable numbers moving across the frontier.
    Mrs. Healey: Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary aware that we appreciate the extremely delicate situation with which he is dealing, and recognise the constructive efforts he has made to alleviate some of the problems? But many of us on both sides of the House are deeply apprehensive that during the next month or two what has been for the United Nations primarily a humanitarian problem, the relief of an unprecedented number of refugees who have left their country to go into surrounding Indian territories, may turn into a political problem and a threat to peace. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has not closed his mind to the possibility of raising the matter at the United Nations as a political and security problem? Does he not agree that another war on the sub-continent would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions for all concerned?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed an anxiety that we share. I do not know whether a meeting of the Security Council would assist. I think that first it must be for the Governments of India or Pakistan to decide, and neither has yet decided to make a move to go to the Security Council. It is a situation that we must watch with great care, in full knowledge of the dangers that the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out.
    Mr. Healey: Might I press the right hon. Gentleman on this? Many of us on both sides feel that it is unfair and perhaps unjust to put the responsibility for raising the matter at the Security Council on the Government of either India or Pakistan, given their past relations with one another. It is of deep concern to the whole of mankind that there should not be another war on the sub-continent, and, therefore, this may be a case where a third party is better placed to take the initiative than either of the two Governments on the sub-continent.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says, because the situation could be very grave. At present I am not sure that the cause of peace between the two countries would be served by an exercise in the Security Council.
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider seeking to pay an official visit to Pakistan and India in the near future.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no plans at present to visit India or Pakistan.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend consider paying a visit as soon as possible to India and Pakistan in view of the danger of war breaking out on the sub-continent, a danger which was pointed out in the leading article in today's Financial Times? I am sure he recognises the need, as does the President of Pakistan, for a return to normality as soon as possible in East Pakistan so that the refugees can return there. Would he not agree that the activities of the Pakistan army and the return of the army to its cantonments depends on the cessation of Bangla Desh guerrilla forces? Will he persuade the Indian Government to stop the activity of those forces?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend refers to a visit by myself. I have often been to India and Pakistan, and I would go again if I thought that that could contribute anything to a peaceful solution. I will bear my hon. Friend's proposal in mind, but the timing would be very important.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider expressing to Mrs. Gandhi our deep appreciation of the tremendous sacrifices made by India in helping 7 million refugees, but at the same time urging her to resist the voices clamouring for military action, as that would make the situation of the refugees even more calamitous than it is today, thanks to the activities of the West Pakistan Government?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister of India would be the first to recognise the great dangers of any military action, and I am sure that the President of Pakistan recognises them, too. The hon. Gentleman may be

    1075
    assured that we shall do everything we can to try to help in what is a very difficult situation.
    Mr. Braine: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one does not have to pay an official visit to India and Pakistan to be aware of the extreme gravity of the position? Does he still adhere to the view which he expressed in the House some weeks ago that, on top of the abject misery in the many refugee camps, there may well be major famine in both East and West Bengal by October? Is he satisfied with the present state of international contingency planning on that score?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my hon. Friend knows, a short time ago we gave £1 million to help refugees in East Pakistan. The United Nations is now taking steps to put United Nations personnel into East Pakistan, and their recommendations will be carefully taken into account. So far as any international machine is ever ready, I think that further help could be injected at comparatively short notice if the situation should deteriorate.
    Mr. Tinn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that hon. Members talked in East Pakistan with members of the regular Indian armed forces taken prisoner inside Pakistan and saw arms of Indian manufacture? Would not the proposed visit enable my right hon. Friend to make representations to India against such interference, which must hold back the day when normality may be restored and refugees enabled to return in confidence?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that everyone will agree in urging restraint on any kind of military intervention from either side of the frontier. It could bring disastrous consequences.

    Malta
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about relations with Malta.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add for the present to what my noble Friend the Minister of State
    1076
    for Defence told the House on 27th July in the course of the Consolidated Fund Bill Debate.—[Vol. 822, c. 267–71.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulties with the present Maltese Government have in no way diminished the affection and admiration of the British people for their fellow subjects in Malta? If the Maltese object to being entangled with super-Powers, might it be worth while considering whether a new defence relationship could be worked out on a European rather than an Atlantic basis?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That could be one possibility. There are various possibilities. The North Atlantic Council is meeting this afternoon, and we hope that something constructive may emerge from that meeting.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary also bear in mind that it should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Malta that defence arrangements for certain of our requirements under N.A.T.O. could be made in Gibraltar rather than Malta?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are other places where the arrangements could be made, but I think that almost every hon. Member would wish that if a reasonable agreement could be reached we should stay in Malta.

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Treatment of Jews)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make further representations at a higher level, along the lines of those made by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, regarding the exclusion of foreign Press and independent observers from trials of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Gorstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government will take to seek to alleviate the situation of Jewish and other minorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): We shall certainly certainly take such opportunities as may occur to make known to the Soviet authorities the widespread concern in this country at the way in which these matters have been handled. But I must repeat that we have no proper locus standi in matters affecting Soviet citizens in the Soviet Union or the practice of Soviet law courts in these cases.
    Mrs. Janner: Whilst I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern, is he aware that the Canadian Prime Minister has been prepared to raise the matter with the Soviet authorities? Does he not feel that the time has come for the Government to intervene with the Soviet authorities at the highest possible level and not just at Under-Secretary level? Does he not feel that this would be a particularly appropriate time, because I am happy to say that more than half the total number of hon. Members have now signed the Motion in my name drawing attention to the problem, which is a rare show of both concern and unanimity in the House?
    Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and, more recently, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have all expressed Her Majesty's Government's concern directly to the Soviet authorities. I do not think that we can go higher than that.
    Mrs. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend study ways to see whether it is possible for the Government to combine or co-operate with like-minded Governments, possibly through the United Nations, to achieve a result which would be satisfactory and please a large number of people in this country?
    Mr. Royle: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that early this year our delegate at the United Nations Human Rights Commission appealed to the Soviet Government to accord all Soviet citizens the right to leave their country.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    1078
    Affairs if he will make a statement on the continuation of talks with the Rhodesian Government.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are still seeking to ascertain whether an acceptable basis can be found for the negotiation of a settlement within the Five Principles. For this purpose, our exploratory exchanges with the Rhodesian régime are continuing.
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say when Lord Goodman will be returning to Salisbury and when he expects these talks to reach Ministerial level?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. I hope that Lord Goodman will be able to have another meeting which will take matters further, but, as I say, I am in discussion with the Rhodesian régime about this. I leave the matter there the time being.
    Mrs. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Ian Smith appeared on Panorama he made it clear that he had no intention of agreeing to unimpeded progress towards majority rule? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not have a direct meeting with Smith unless there is an overt and clear change in his position and that he will not go to Rhodesia just as a sop to the pro-Rhodesian band of the Conservative Party?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That would not be my habit. In reply to the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, any settlement would have to be within the principle of unimpeded progress to majority rule.
    Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the question of the Common Market decision to be taken by the House in October will make no difference at all to the timing and the manner of the negotiations he is conducting in Rhodesia?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is in connection

    1079
    with these talks that the tricky little traitor Hugh Beadle, who for so long deceived the rightful Governor of Southern Rhodesia while sharing both his roof and hospitality, has recently had his British passport renewed in Pretoria?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of the latter part of that supplementary question.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it conceivable that the Foreign Secretary does not know this as a fact?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Healey: While understanding the numerous delicate points of timing attending the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations on this question, may I ask whether he has any intention of meeting representatives of the Rhodesian Government before the end of September?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better await events. What I must be certain of before I meet any official representatives from Rhodesia is, as I said earlier, that we are talking the same language. I am not quite sure yet that we are.

    Namibia
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has now received from the South African Government concerning the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Namibia; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Godber: On 28th July the South African Government conveyed to Her Majesty's Government an Aide-Mémoire on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa. This is now being studied.
    Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is growing frustration at the inordinate delay on the part of the Government in making their view of the advisory opinion of the International Court known? Can he give a categorical assurance that before we go into recess we can expect a clear statement from the Government accepting the
    1080
    opinion and the implications that flow from it?
    Mr. Godber: That supplementary question really does not follow from the Question on the Order Paper. However, there are specific Questions on that subject, and I must reserve my reply until we reach them.
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet completed his study of the findings of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take on the judgement of the International Court on Namibia.
    Mr. Godber: I am not yet in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 12th July. I must ask hon. Members to await completion of the Government's study of the Court's Opinion.—[Vol. 821, c. 22–3, 8.]
    Mr. Archer: What, about the Opinion, is less than clear? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that prior to the Opinion the United Kingdom was diplomatically isolated over this but arguably right in law, whereas since the Opinion it is diplomatically isolated and manifestly wrong in law?
    Mr. Godber: I could not accept that generalisation. This is an extremely complicated issue, and the Government wish to have the fullest possible opportunity to study all aspects of it before reaching a decision.
    Mr. Lyon: Is not the situation that the result of the Advisory Opinion of the Court makes Resolution 276 of 1970 mandatory and binding on this country? As a result, ought not this country to be considering ways in which it should withdraw from economic activities in Southwest Africa? If we are not to condone violence—as the Government say they will not do—to change Southern African policy and if we are not to fulfil our obligations under international law, what are we to do to change Southern African policy?
    Mr. Godber: That question illustrates the danger of jumping to conclusions. It is quite wrong to assume that this resolution is mandatory. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the arrangement to which he refers was entered into by a Government of which he was a member.

    Middle East
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held between the French and British Governments to restart negotiations for a general settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
    Mr. Godber: We are in constant touch with the French Government, as with other Governments concerned, about the developing situation in the Middle East.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals for an interim solution seem to have failed and that in the meantime Israel's actions in Jerusalem and Gaza, which are widely deplored, are making a peaceful settlement more difficult? Will he therefore get together with the French Government in order to try to make further progress on a general settlement along the lines of the American peace proposals, which are almost universally agreed?
    Mr. Godber: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to make progress in this matter and his disappointment that we have not made it yet. But I cannot share his view that the interim proposals of the United States Government have failed. Discussions are still continuing, and we must give time to make clear whether those negotiations succeed or not.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be as well to persuade the various Arab Governments to stop fighting amongthemselves in order to put them in a posture to negotiate peace with Israel? Will he take steps to interview the various Jordanian terrorists who have crossed into the relative peace of Israel and ask them who they would like to negotiate on their behalf?
    Mr. Godber: The Question on the Order Paper, as I understood it, related to specific discussions which were going on, largely between Israel and the United
    1082
    Arab Republic. I would not wish to comment on the wider issues the hon. Gentleman has raised.

    China (Mrs. Gladys Yang)
    Mr. Gorstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken to obtain information from the Chinese Government about the circumstances and whereabouts of Mrs. Gladys Yang.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: Mrs. Yang's detention has been raised with the Chinese Government on many ocasions. Our chargé d'affaires in Peking was informed in April that she was in good health but that the case was still under investigation. The Chinese Government have been left in no doubt of our concern at her detention. We shall continue to do all we can to secure her release.
    Mr. Gorst: I appreciate the efforts which have been made by my hon. Friend of behalf of my constituent's sister, Mrs. Yang. Is not the situation extremely unsatisfactory? My hon. Friends will be aware, I hope, that I have already addressed two Questions on this subject during the last 12 months and that I have actually visited the charge d'affaires in this country and that all we are faced with is "prolonged investigation" Does this not constitute difficulties impeding any improvement in relations between this country and the Chinese Republic?
    Mr. Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is very unsatisfactory. As I have said, I shall continue to make our deep concern clear to the Chinese Government. The matter was mentioned informally to the Chinese Mission in London on 29th July by a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    Australia
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of Anglo-Australian relations.
    Mr. Rippon: I have every confidence that Anglo-Australian relations will continue to be as close and cordial in the future as they have been in the past.
    Mr. Moyle: Could they not be more cordial? Are there not a number of Australian communities which remain totally unprotected as a result of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mishandling of the situation in Brussels? Would he not agree that unless the Sugar Agreement producers get some protection they could wreck the International Sugar Agreement by acting unilaterally? Is that not likely to happen since the E.E.C. is not a member of the International Sugar Agreement?
    Mr. Rippon: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is quite untrue. There is no part of the Australian economy left totally unprotected as a result of the agreement which we have reached, and that has been explained to the House. As to the future of the International Sugar Agreement, this is a matter of considerable concern. It comes up for renewal next year, and we would hope to be closely in touch with the Community and all the other parties about the future.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I wish at the outset, on behalf of the whole House, to express my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on having escaped injury in the bomb attack on his flat. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will also wish to be associated with an expression of sympathy for the woman who was hurt in the attack, and in denouncing in strong language any attempt to solve our domestic problems by violent means.
This debate is about a major human tragedy affecting thousands of workers and their families on Clydeside who will be left without work, without the pride that goes with work and without the self-respect of earning their living in the shipbuilding industry. The decision announced on Thursday, which we are now debating, will have the effect of creating on Clydeside a disaster area worse than that to be found even in areas of highest unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The Government justified the decision made on Thursday by reference to the Report of an Advisory Group published before the House as a White Paper, though unsigned by those who were supposed to have taken part in it. I submit to the House that this is the most inadequate, inaccurate and misleading White Paper presented to Parliament for many years. Responsibility for accepting it lies firmly with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. It is, therefore, to the Government that we must turn to justify the publication of the Report, the heart of which lies in the first conclusion and first recommendation. The first conclusion referred to:
"a totally mistaken initial structure which forced together in one rigid and presitious Group five companies whose shipbuilding competitiveness was exceedingly doubtful."
That was the heart of the first conclusion. The centre of the first recommendation was that
"an end be made to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders."

1085
If what was said in the Advisory Group Report were true, and it is not, then the Government could lay all the responsibility on the Labour Government, which is what they wish to do. The wording of the Advisory Group's recommendations bear a very striking resemblance to a pamphlet published two or three weeks ago by Aims of Industry and was clearly inspired by the same thinking. [Interruption.]
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I accept full and complete personal responsibility for the policy followed by the Labour Government before, during and after the establishment of U.C.S. But it is a very curious thing that the Advisory Group—quite wrongly called the Three Wise Men—made no attempt, and I have checked this, to investigate the conditions that prevailed at the time of the formation of U.C.S.
The Advisory Group had one hour-long interview with Sir William Swallow, but he was asked no questions as to the conditions at the time when U.C.S. was formed. The Group also made no attempt to interrogate me about the part I played at that time. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that a Report presented to Parliament purporting to give a judgment, without hearing the evidence, reflects well on those who made it, then they are confirming my belief that responsibility in this matter goes beyond the Cabinet to the whole of the Conservative Party.
The plain truth is that in 1965 British shipbuilding as a whole was on the point of collapse. The Geddes Committee was set up in the spring of 1965 and, after sitting for one year, it recommended that the whole of the Government's approach to shipbuilding should be based on the idea of grouping. At that time all the yards in U.C.S. faced bankruptcy, the first to go having been Fairfields. If the Labour Government had not intervened to save Fairfields, it would not now be possible for the Government to come forward with a proposal based on Fairfields as the centre of a new shipbuilding group.
When, in 1966, the Geddes Report was published, it was accepted by management and labour. It was accepted by the Government and Opposition of the day
1086
and the Bill which I presented to Parliament to implement it was received unopposed on Second and Third Readings and was welcomed by spokesmen of the then Opposition. It was as a result of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, as it then was, that U.C.S. was formed.
Let it be clear—because one would never guess this from reading the Report of the Advisory Group—that the grouping of U.C.S. was on the initiative of the private yards and not on the initiative of the Government. A working party of private shipbuilders was set up and it invited Mr. Hepper, who had been appointed to the Shipbuilding Industry Board, to work with it to prepare the grouping.
When the grouping had been prepared by the private shipyards, plans were submitted to the Board. The Board recommended support and I approved that support. But the group did not come into being until the directors of the private yards had submitted the matter to their shareholders and their shareholders had approved the formation of the group. Mr. Hepper was made Chairman of U.C.S. and is on record as saying that he did not expect the group to be viable until 1973.
The first grave inaccuracy in the Report of the Advisory Group is its suggestion that this group was forced by the Government to come together. The plain fact is that the private shipyards themselves responded, on their own initiative, to the recommendations of the Geddes Report.
To describe it as a "prestigious group" is a curious choice of adjective. By world standards, U.C.S. is a tiny shipbuilding group. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), now Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said on Second Reading that there were three Japanese shipbuilding groups with a capacity greater than the British and German shipbuilding industries put together. The idea that this was a massive and unwieldy group was, by nature, totally untrue.
The Government supported U.C.S. at the time for a number of reasons, first for employment reasons. There were 13,500 men working in the Upper Clyde yards, supported by another 20,000 in

1087
supply industries in the area. The possibility of more than 30,000 jobs disappearing in West Central Scotland and on Clydeside was quite unacceptable to us. We were not prepared to see men rotting on Clydeside if there was a possibility of building a viable group there.
Lest this might appear to be soft-heartedness compared with the hard-heartedness of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is worth adding that on any cost-benefit study of the alternative of allowing the men to rot the building of a new shipbuilding group out of those components made a lot more sense. Forming U.C.S. made much more sense than letting a lot of men be paid by the Government for doing nothing. There were also, of course, balance of payments considerations. Part of the balance of payments surplus which the Chancellor now enjoys was earned by U.C.S. because every ship built in Britain is either an import or export substitution factor.
The record of U.C.S. is well known. About £12 million of the loss which we have been invited to believe is the reason for its collapse was inherited primarily from the old private companies that had formed part of the group. When these private companies submitted their estimates of loss they under-estimated by a factor of four; the losses were four times as great as they had estimated, and this does come out in the Report.
When the £9 million of loss on the early orders of the new group are taken into account—and it was exactly to cover them that Geddes recommended that grants be paid to cover transitional losses—one gets to the figure of £21 million arising simply from the formation of the group. The Advisory Group says there were
"no improvements in facilities, no worthwhile investment".
What the Group forgot to mention was the covered berth at Yarrow's which the right hon. Gentleman opened himself. This was announced by the Shipbuilding Industry Board at the time when U.C.S. was in being. The plain truth is that Yarrow's came into the group and got a £1·25 million covered berth. I am told—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—left the group to this year paying £1 sterling for its shares and for its pains was given a £4½ million loan
1088
interest-free up to 1974 by the Government from the Defence Vote in order to carry its losses. No reference whatsoever is made about that in the Advisory Group's Report.
I do not have to make it clear because the record is there to be seen, what the late Government's estimate of the management record was in the group. I made it clear in June, 1969, that we were not prepared to continue financial credit unless there were substantial changes in management practice, unless working practises were altered, unless there were some slimming of the labour force amounting to some thousands of men.
The oft repeated quotation by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in the House in the early hours of Wednesday morning implied that at that time I said there was no further money for U.C.S. That is not true. I said we were not prepared to provide more money at that time unless these changes were carried through and that the S.I.B. would be ready to look at the matter again in the early part of 1970. Then before Christmas we offered a further £7 million which was welcomed at the time by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) in his intervention when I made my statement.
The question which the House has to decide, and which the men on Clydeside want answered, is whether the achievements in the last two years justify continued faith in the concern. Mr. Ken Douglas, who was appointed managing director in 1969, came from Austin and Pickersgill, and is one of the most successful shipbuilders in this country, a man who has been in shipbuilding for 35 years, a man who instituted the cost accounting system—picked out for praise by Geddes. In the two years he has been there, steel productivity rose from 11 tons per man per year to 23·6 tons per man per year, more than twice in two years. Mr. Douglas checked the average records of the private shipyards in the 15 years before the formation of U.C.S. and the fact is that at no time did the private shipyards reach more than 10 tons per man per year—in the 15 years before the formation of U.C.S.; and the 23·6 tons per man per year productivity now compares with the best to be found in the country.
The labour force has been reduced by 16 per cent. on an agreed basis. Wage rates, separate wage rates, inherited by U.C.S., which numbered 700, have been reduced to four.
The Clyde class standardised ships have been launched, and standardised ore-carriers started. The order book is £90 million—which the Advisory Group says is rather small. Why is it rather small? Because over the winter the Government stopped the credits and the group was unable to get fresh orders.
Looking back over the years of U.C.S., and with the benefit of hindsight, I have no doubt in my own mind that it would have been better if the previous Government had taken the whole industry into public ownership at the time we launched our programme. We should have re-equipped and rationalised and swept aside the old owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, why did the Government appoint Lord Robens to the Advisory Group? It is a fact that he was the man who did exactly to the coal mines what I am saying we might well have done to the British shipbuilding industry. It is astonishing to me that Lord Robens, who has had experience with the Coal Board, should have allowed his name to go forward in signing the Advisory Group's Report.
I say this to the Government, in the light of what I have said to the House, that there is no substance in the charge which they are trying to make against the previous Government, and this is why the case for a Select Committee is absolutely unanswerable. In a Select Committee the facts could be brought to light, and my colleagues and I could be subjected to cross-examination by the Members of the House. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed.
Now I move to the record of the present Government in dealing with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. Of course, the first item is bound to be the so-called Ridley report printed in The Guardian, which was written before the election—in December 1969.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made four recommendations:
"One. Give no more money to U.C.S.
Two. Let Yarrow leave U.C.S. if they still want to.
1090
Third. This would mean the bankruptcy of U.C.S. We could put in a Government 'butcher' to cut up U.C.S. and sell cheaply to Lower Clyde and others the assets of U.C.S., to minimise upheaval and dislocation."
Finally:
"After liquidation or reconstruction we should sell the Government holdings in U.C.S., even for a pittance."
That is and has been the attitude of the Government and of the Minister now responsible. That report has been quoted time and again and it was put to the Minister in the debate last week, and has never been denied.
It has to be remembered that had payments continued in the autumn of last year, and had the Government not stopped the guarantees under the shipbuilding credit scheme, from October until February, 80 per cent. of the payments due to U.C.S., amounting to £5·3 million, would not have been withheld on orders. If we look at the steel production figures we shall find that the only reduction in the rising curve of productivity occurred during the winter, when the credits were withheld.
The day on which the Government told U.C.S. that they were going to resume these payments—they told them on 3rd February—if they had not the bankruptcy of U.C.S. would have been announced on the same day, 4th February, as the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce, and the reason why the Government gave a little more time to U.C.S. was that even they were unable to contemplate the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce and the bankruptcy of U.C.S. on the same day, 4th February, 1971.
It is, perhaps, a curious turn of events, that as we are debating U.C.S. today the United States Senate debates the guarantee for Lockheed, without which the disaster in Glasgow—the Hillington plant and elsewhere—would be more seriously compounded.
We come to 3rd February, and I refer again to that evil genius, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, whose name recurs throughout this story. This is what he said on 27th July, when he was talking about the announcement of the credits, that they would be roughly twice what had been announced to the House on 11th February:
"The company's accounts were inspected by the accountants in the Department and in the Treasury including the company's accountants,

1091
believed that the company was perfectly viable and in a condition to continue trading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 393.]
What the Minister said last week was that on 11th February the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury were convinced that the Company was viable.
Then we come to the position now where the right hon. Gentleman was able to tell the House that there was no prospect whatsoever that Mr. Hepper could give him any hope of viability being continued. He said he did not know what the position was.
I have in my hands a document which he probably knows very well, which was submitted to his Department by the company under a system I instituted myself. There are 17 pages of figures broken down by yards, to each ship under construction, showing wages every day, showing the latest cost and the variations between estimates and costs. The Government had their own director on the board, and there was the Shipbuilding Industry Board, which had the full resources of the Department and the Treasury, and yet the Minister says he did not know the position at U.C.S. Then, in the summer, U.C.S. asked for £5 or £6 million in further support. It was this that led the Government to set up the advisory group and to publish a report which is quite unworthy of those who contributed to it, with no evidence, no figures and no estimate of the cost to the Government of the course which it recommended to the House.
The consequences of this action are well known to hon. Members. If the figures given in the report and the statement are right, 5,000 to 6,000 men could be directly affected on Clydeside. Allowing a ratio of two to one for people in the supplying industry—because shipbuilding is an assembly industry—there could be up to 15,000 people made redundant by the Government's statement. In Clydebank itself, a community of 50,000 people, about one person in three works in U.C.S. The local authority gets £100,000 in rates from the Clydebank yard. Faced with redundancies on this scale, housing subsidies will have to be paid to the unemployed. There are three advanced factories, two building and one authorised, and no takers. The shop-
1092
keepers among many others already have been and will be affected. The school-leavers are not just leaving school but leaving Clydebank, and the town is on its way to becoming a ghost town, a town whose local authority the advisory group recommended should be invited to contribute towards the redeployment of the men. The steel workers at Clyde Bridge who supply the steel for U.C.S. are also faced with redundancy. It is estimated that £40 million of gross trade is to be taken out of the Scottish economy, an economy now denied investment grants and faced with the ending of R.E.P.
Other shipbuilding firms throughout the country are directly endangered by the fact that this Government are the only Government in any advanced country now giving no support whatsoever to the shipbuilding industry, except—and it is surprising—that the Stormont Government, unlike the Government in Westminster, are supporting Harland and Wolff, because that Government are more sensitive to the social considerations.
What is the cost of the policy? Can it be proved that this policy is somehow cheaper than the alternative? Let me add up the cost. There is the £3½ million given to the liquidator. If unemployment is between 5,000 and 15,000 that means between £5 and £15 million in redundancy and unemployment pay for the first year alone for the men involved. New jobs at an estimated cost of £1,000 to £1,500 per job would cost another £7 to £21 million. Capital for the new company, which the Secretary of State admits could be £10 million, might involve the Government in £7 million. On the estimates I make, and I have not the figures which the Minister has, it looks to me as though the Government have embarked on a policy involving expenditure between £22 and £49 million in lieu of giving the £5 million that U.C.S. required to maintain itself in June of this year.
For these reasons we believe that the Government's policy is a massive betrayal of the men working in U.C.S. It makes no industrial sense, and it makes no economic sense. While the advisory group was recommending this contraction of British shipbuilding, during the last few weeks, the Japanese have announced an increase of shipbuilding capacity of

1093
5 million gross registered tons a year to take place over the next eight years.
Now I come to the attitude of the men faced with this betrayal. They have decided to fight for their survival against the fate the Government have prescribed for them of being put on the scrap-heap in Clydeside. Not a single member of the Cabinet has had the guts to go to Clydeside to tell the men themselves of the decision they made. The men are not striking, they are working. I support 100 per cent. their decision to work in the yards in protest against the actions that the Government have taken. Not only do I support them, but the unions, the S.T.U.C, the local authorities and the churches in Scotland support the line the men have taken.
I say this with feeling because I am a descendant of a shipyard worker and first visited John Brown 25 years ago. Over the years I have seen the labour force on Clydebank turn from a defeated, demoralised, divided group engaged in demarcation disputes and unofficial strikes into a determined and responsible body of men welded into unity in defending the public assets which have been made available to them by this House.
There is not one word of criticism from the men of the management of the yard. The reason why Mr. Douglas undertook the job may interest the House. His father was a boilermaker who had been unemployed for six years, and Mr. Douglas went there because he believed U.C.S could be saved. Mr. Douglas has said that in terms of technical and manual skills the men in U.C.S. are as good if not better than men in any other part of the country.
The steel productivity figures have been higher since the work-in was announced in June, and the first figures which are available to me show that in the two weeks following the announcement of the work-in the steel productivity figures were the highest ever achieved in U.C.S. Absenteeism has been cut by 50 per cent., pilferage has almost gone—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—anyone working in a cold, unheated shed on cold unheated metal in the winter might take a rather different view of absenteeism, and there are some pretty distinguished absentees sitting on the Government side of the House.
The irony of this is that on Thursday in the other place the Royal Assent will be given to the Industrial Relations Bill, under Clause 93 of which it will be an unfair industrial practice for any union in Scotland to support the men faced with redundancy in U.C.S. This is the strategy of the Government. They increase unemployment and then use the courts to stop other unions supporting the men faced with the policy of redundancy upon which the Government are set.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is quoted in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday as saying that what the men have done is of no significance. It is, for reasons which I shall give the House, an historic event. The men have rediscovered, by what they have done, the self-respect which they never had under private management in the past. They want a future in shipbuilding, and they mean to have a say in that future. They have shown the way to responsibility in industry by assuming responsibility in industry. Their strong, dignified and determined stand, expressing itself in many deputations to London and by sitting in the Chamber of the House show that they expect Parliament to respond to what they have sought.
We want responsibility in industry, but we shall not get it by legislating a code of conduct and enforcing it in the courts. We shall get it by making it possible for men to exercise responsibility for their own destiny in the firms in which they work. It is up to Parliament to meet this responsibility against the background I have given to the House.
I make a positive proposal. The people in Scotland will be looking for it when they read the accounts of the debate. I propose, first, that the Government should acquire the assets from the liquidator that are not already owned by the Government; secondly, that they should write-off the debts, as has been done in other industries, notably in large chunks in the older industries such as the coal mining industry; thirdly, that U.C.S. should be asked to prepare a development plan worked out between management and workers leading to viability on a management pattern and structure agreed by the workers as a whole; fourthly, that no more than half of the money that the Government are making available to the liquidator to be

1095
poured out in redundancy and unemployment pay or in capital for the new private group should be made available to give U.C.S. an opportunity to complete its move to viability.
The charge I make on behalf of the Opposition in the House today is a grave one. It is that the Prime Minister and the Government were determined to destroy U.C.S. from the start. They consistently misled the House as to the facts and their intentions. Thirdly, they are wasting priceless assets, the skill of the people who work in U.C.S. and doing it at a far higher cost to public funds than would be necessary if the experiment were allowed to continue. They are leaving Britain, alone among modern industrial nations as the one country that is not supporting its shipbuilding industry. In the process they are deliberately sentencing thousands of people to a slow and living death of long-term unemployment in the wasteland of West Central Scotland which the Government have decided to create.
The Prime Minister's epitaph will be: "He is the man who forgot the people", and the people will never forgive him for it.
4.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): rose—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Let's have Ted—let Ted get on his feet. Or is he fast asleep on his yacht?
Mrs. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for his courtesy in referring in the terms in which he did to the recent distressing events which took place at my home.
I should like first to refer to one matter which has distressed me greatly in the last few days. It is that in any sense I personally have lacked sympathy for the situation which has arisen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Anybody who knows me will readily recognise how unlikely that is. I have always taken the view—and I took it no less last week—that expressions of sympathy are one thing and that real steps to alleviate the situation are another.
I should like to do two things today. The first is to elucidate what practical
1096
steps are available, to say how they were devised, why they were devised, and to give the reasons the Government decided to adopt them. Secondly, I wish to review some of the background causes of this industrial disaster so that responsibility can be fairly attributed where it correctly lies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Private enterprise.
Mr. Davies: First, I should like to deal with the practical steps and with what has happened in recent days. With regard to the expert Group which has advised us, I was astonished to see some of the remarks which have been attributed to the right hon. Gentleman and others about the attitude and comportment of this group of people. They are from any point of view a fine lot. [Laughter.]
I should like to refer right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the remarks which were made only last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my quoting him. He said:
"I had the advantage of seeing Sir Alexander Glen, Lord Robens and the two McDonald's. I was impressed by the quality of the people. I was anxious to find what was their remit. If a hatchet job is to be done, it will not be done by them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 381.]
I believe those remarks were correctly made by the right hon. Gentleman last week. It would seem to me irrational to imagine that this group of people, three of whom are Scotsmen with a considerable and personal interest in Scotland, should have devised what has been called a "politically motivated Report". This seemed to me to be utterly divorced from reality or probability; indeed, I am entirely satisfied in my own mind that that is the case.
I therefore found it distressing to hear the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East seek to ally this Report with what he considers to have been a longstanding intention of the Government which they have deviously followed through a variety of different steps in order to ensure the downfall of U.C.S. Nothing could be further from the truth. The so-called Ridley report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was, so far as I was concerned, heard of for

1097
the very first time last month. I have never heard of it before—[Interruption.]—and then I heard of it through the pages of The Guardian. How is it possible that I, who after all was responsible for the basic arrangements of policy in this field, without the least knowledge of the existence of this paper, should have been influenced by it? That idea is entirely unjustified.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to see the pursuit of this particular policy in the depriving of credit guarantees to the concern in question last autumn. He seems to forget that a specific piece of legislation, the Shipbuilding Industry Act, clearly provided that I could not give such guarantees in the circumstances in which U.C.S. found itself last autumn. Therefore, to try to pretend that the Advisory Group's Report was politically activated and that we have been following some underground and discreditable course of action is so far from the truth as to be a mockery.
It might be as well to compare the remarks I have quoted from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock with the kind of remark attributed to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East in a Press Association report last week:
"Simply a hatchet job … the most disrepjutable report ever published in Parliament."
Mr. William Ross: Yes, I say it too.
Mrs. Davies: Not so. It was an objective and practical assessment of the situation.
Criticism has also been levelled at the Report by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East because it was brief. It was not brief because the underlying material or the underlying consultation was uncareful—far from it. It was brief because the Group considered, and I think rightly, that what needed to be before Parliament and the people was a succinct statement of what the real facts were, a clear indication of the responsibilities therefor, and the steps to be taken. The background material exists in extenso; consultation was very extensive and the extent of confidential information was great too. What has been published is the most important thing. This was aimed at pointing clearly to what were the cir-
1098
cumtances of this disaster and what was the sole means of escaping from it.
Mr. Benn: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain one thing to the House? The only meaning of the Advisory Group's Report is to reverse totally the findings of Geddes and, secondly, to do so without making any investigation of the circumstances in which the Group was established. Would he comment on that matter?
Mr. Davies: The problem the Group had to deal with was what was to be done at this juncture with a liquidating company in what were obviously serious circumstances and to see how survival from that situation could be procured. This was the requirement of the Group, and this is what it has endeavoured to do.
Let us consider what problems it faced in so doing. In the first place, it had regard to the physical condition of the yards themselves. Already at the time of the formation of U.C.S. back in 1967 these yards were either obsolete or obsolescent in their facilities. This was well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East. Since then virtually nothing has been done to modernise or make them more efficient in their facilities. The second thing the Group faced was that the provisions made for anything like an effective cost control or cost estimating system were completely absent. Therefore, the whole basis of forward costing of new construction which was established was unable to sustain any real understanding of where the group was going.
The third question that the Group had to deal with was the true state of labour productivity. The truth is—I readily rccept it—that in the course of the last 18 months there has undoubtedly been an improvement in terms of steel output per man. I do not wish at all to diminish the achievement, but it is a fact that this achievement was at a certain cost. It was at the cost of keeping the cost per ton of steel handled exactly the same as it had been previously. Do not let us be overborne by the claims of improvements in terms of the international competitivity of U.C.S. The truth is that it was not the case.
The productivity potential has improved. It was also considerably improved by virtue of building ships which were on

1099
the whole basically simpler, but it is not a factor which has enormously changed the competitive terms of this company. It would be wrong to say that it had.
By far the most important consideration the Group had to face—it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman paid so very little regard to it—was the position of the order book. We had all been given to understand that U.C.S. disposed of a very extensive and considerable order book which covered it for a long while into the future. The truth is that this is not so. When the Group said in the Report that the order book was dangerously thin it meant it. The situation was that, on the basis of the order book as it stands today, there was work assured, if all three yards were kept in action, for Clydebank and Scotstoun to have about a year's work ahead—no more—and for Govan to go on for a little longer but not much. This was the state of the order book. Let us make no mistake about it. The whole of the scheduling of the production side of the business was on that basis.
What were the prospects for improved orders? They were poor, because at present the shipping industry is in considerable difficulty. Freight rates, as we all know, are low, the level of new ship orders has been poor, and the prospect of bringing in a considerable number of new orders is very remote.
So the practical effect of this was that one had to look forward to a moment of time, not so long from now, when if all three yards were maintained in action, none of them would be working for want of orders to work on. These are the facts which the right hon. Gentleman conveniently seeks to ignore. They exist.
What were the conclusions the Group drew from these facts and which were the understandable ones in the circumstances? The first was that, because of this deficit of orders and the outlook of a deficit of orders, it was necessary, if a survival of activity of shipbuilding on the Clyde were to be maintained, to concentrate the order book into the facilities most fitted to receive it. The facilities in question were those of Govan and Lint-house. They were chosen for the reason I intimated earlier—that whereas all were obsolete or obsolescent these were the least so. Govan was particularly suscep-
1100
tible to being improved, because it had space that neither Scotstoun nor Clyde bank had.
The second conclusion was that there was a need to standardise the form of ships concerned. Whereas the whole tradition of Clyde shipbuilding has been to meet on a commercial basis whatever the world has wanted, the truth is that in the Upper Clyde this potential is no longer there. In relation to the undertaking of orders for worldwide commercial shipping the yards are restricted to a certain rather limited class of ships. Therefore, standardisation in those forms of ships became essential.
Next, it was clearly envisaged that one of the fundamental requirements was a big change in management, because management has undoubtedly failed to do in U.C.S. what perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wanted. The result has been that the management is not capable of defending this new entity, this new effective long-term nucleus of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde, and it had to move to a very much improved labour productivity. This was evident, for the reason I stated earlier, and also because in relation to worldwide shipbuilding our productivity per man is still very low.
All this meant an access to a considerable amount of additional capital. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £10 million. It may be as much as that. I have said, and I mean, that the Government are prepared to come in with this, but they want to see some private effort to support the operation.
The reaction of the Government to the expert Group's proposals, which I contend were absolutely reasonable and impartial in the light of the facts and not politically motivated in any sense, was to try to see whether there was any possible alternative arrangement. However, any alternative arrangement that contemplated maintaining all the yards in action would be fatal, faced with the fact of the effluxion of the order book and the certainty that within a reasonable time there would have been no shipbuilding at all on the Upper Clyde. The only basis, therefore, was to take the proposals which have been made and go to work on them.
Therefore, although I understand and sympathise with the action which the

1101
men have taken and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—I understand their emotions of dismay and shock which have obviously taken place—I am sure that they are making a fatal mistake. I am sure that they are doing things which unfortunately will lead in the end to their own great disadvantage.
I greatly deplore what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing in trying to foster and incite them to do so, because this is not in their interests at all. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do for them?"] I will certainly have a word to say on the subject of the problems we face.
Mrs. Heffer: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman go there?
Mrs. Davies: It may interest right hon. and hon. Members to know that my intention is to go there to-morrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I look forward to going there with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to talk to anybody who reasonably and sensibly wishes to see the activity of shipbuilding pursued on the Clyde.
I realise—none better—that even if the project which I believe is the essential one for us to pursue materialises, the impact of the U.C.S. failure will be very grave indeed- I have no doubt about that. Even if Lower Clyde Shipbuilders is able to take on 1,000 additional men, even if the other assets of U.C.S. are acquired elsewhere and operated for shipbuilding or other purposes; even though, too, the impact of concentrating this programme in a sustainable long-term operation on the Upper Clyde will have a mitigating effect on the position of the supplying concerns, I realise that there will undoubtedly be serious redundancies on the Upper Clyde. I deplore it as much as anybody, but I sincerely believe that what has been put forward is the best proposal in all the circumstances.
I know, too, that there have been a great many questions as to why something special could not be devised all of a sudden to try to mop up what is a very serious situation. Unfortunately, the trouble is—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realise this—that what we are faced with at the moment is an inadequacy of investment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"]
1102
I think I know very well where the fault lies, but I am not here to debate that question. I am here to debate the question of the Upper Clyde, which is my big problem at the moment.
I sincerely believe that, in view of the state of the level of investments, the use of regional differentials and the discipline of the I.D.C. policy are not wholly the right methods at the moment by which to seek intensive investment in the Upper Clyde. The real problem is to increase investment, and the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are devised to achieve that on a national scale.
The first issue that has to be faced from now on is to get the management situation right. Until that is done, all the rest of the problems are secondary. Therefore, the first thing I shall look to the Group for—and I have confidence in the Group to help with this—is to find adequate management to replace what has been in the event inadequate management. Only then will it be possible to enter into the various other measures which are concerned with negotiating with the unions, discovering sources of capital to sustain the venture, and examine with the liquidator what can be done to make sure that we can preserve the Govan-Linthouse system on the Upper Clyde as a nucleus for the future of shipbuilding there.
The genuine sympathy and understanding which I have for the people in Clydebank at the moment are not extended to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. In some sense, he has been the evil genius of shipbuilding, as he has been the evil genius of a number of the country's other industrial ventures. The extraordinarily complicated alibi, to which he treated us earlier, is entirely inaccurate and fails to recognise his own responsibility. Unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman sponsored and encouraged the whole ill-fated venture. He was the person behind the whole operation which saw the assembly of a very ill-assorted group into the U.C.S. Company. Geddes or not, the then Minister concerned was the man behind the operation. There is no doubt about that.
Fortunately, he failed, as I believe he wished to fail, to entice the Lower Clyde

1103
shipbuilders, Scot Lithgows, into the same consortium. If we had not extracted Yarrow's earlier this year, we should have had a much more serious catastrophe on the Upper Clyde than the one that we see today.
This embryonic concern was loaded with every form of accruing liability. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to some of them today. He failed to recognise the fact that many of these liabilities were taken on after the company was formed. New orders were taken on at prices which, even in 1968, together showed manifest losses, although they were extended greatly as the years went by.
The management, for which the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility, failed to devise adequate methods of forward costing for the purpose of pricing new construction, of actual costing to check cost overrun in time to take action, of accounting generally, so that, even today, the most recent and approved audited accounts are for August, 1968. The management failed entirely to provide for essential modernisation and rationalisation of the yards. The right hon. Gentleman himself said so today. Yet he did nothing to make sure that it did. He presided over the allocation of masses of public funds to this concern at the same time as he was asserting repeatedly that he would do so no longer.
There are countless quotations on the subject. I take only one, which is the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 24th June, 1969. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"… we have never taken the view—it would be quite wrong to take the view—that at whatever price U.C.S. or any other company in the shipbuilding industry would be kept alive. That would be accepting an open-ended commitment and would undermine entirely the shipbuilding policy generally."
Mrs. Benn: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will turn back to page 256, where I said that we
"… were assured that the S.I.B. would be ready to discuss the developing financial situation of the company early next year were the reconstructed Board and management. …"
If there is any truth in what the right hon. Gentleman has said about my part,
1104
why did not the Government agree to the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate it?
Mrs. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has referred me back to what he said earlier in his evidence. I might point out in this connection that, despite what he said about the S.I.B., he put up £7 million when the S.I.B. itself would not do so, and he put it up on an entirely subordinated debt basis, virtually unsupported by his own organism. The right hon. Gentleman has no justification for saying what he has said. In my view, he cannot escape responsibility, it is there, and his present behaviour is an affront to all that has gone before.
I must apologise for that slight diversion. I felt that the record had been greatly mis-stated by the right hon. Gentleman and that it had to be put straight.
The real need now is to take urgent steps effectively to salvage what is possible from this dreadful disaster. It is to that need that we should all address ourselves. I am convinced that the Report before us is a conclusive and practical document which we should be wise to implement. I intend to devote my own efforts entirely to that, and I enjoin right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and everyone who has any influence in these matters to weigh in to try to bring it about.
Hon. Members: Resign.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. Hugh McCartney: Listening to the principal spokesman for the Government on this issue, I was filled with disgust. It is apparent that the right hon. Gentleman's sole concern is to engage in an exercise of self-justification. He has no interest in the people involved in this terrible tragedy on Clydeside, for which he and his Government are principally responsible.
When the right hon. Gentleman was busy throwing brickbats at this side of the House, I was astonished that he refused the appeals to him to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole affair. If the right hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the origin of these troubles lies in decisions taken by the previous Government, why does not he appoint a

1105
Select Committee which can provide the truth and get at the facts of the matter?
I do not expect the boiler makers on the benches opposite to understand the boiler makers in Clydeside. They speak a different language. They may have callouses on their backsides, but they have none on their hands.
We on this side of the House should be wearing black armbands today. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should be draped in sackcloth and ashes. We are mourning the death of the shipbuilding industry in Upper Clydeside, and the decimation and desolation of the town of Clydebank. It is one of the large burghs in Scotland. It has a tremendous history in the shipbuilding and engineering industries. Its men and women are proud of their heritage, and they wish to continue the great traditions which have been built up in their town. Apparently, they are to be refused the opportunity. For all time, perhaps, they are to be refused the opportunity to continue along the road that they have been travelling for so many years.
The Government are now backtracking and sidestepping. They never realised the reaction that their decision would produce. At long last, they talk about going to Clydebank. The right hon. Gentleman said that he proposes to go tomorrow. I advised him to take a good bodyguard with him—
Mr. Ian MacArthur: Shame.
Mr. McCartney: The shame is on that side of the House. As I have said at least three times before in this House, the social and industrial policies of this Government are taking them down the road to violence. We cannot shut our eyes to the possibility.
I turn now to the Report of the Advisory Group on Shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde. This document, for which the Government are responsible, although they are trying to hide behind the four wise men, if such they can be called, supports statements made by the Secretary of State and others. Unlike some people, I do not think that it is a stupid document. It has been very skilfully prepared to ensure that there will be no continuity of shipbuilding on the upper reaches of the Clyde.
1106
Paragraph 3.1 states:
"Our Recommendations, subject to the approval as appropriate of the Liquidator, are as follows:—

(1) that an end be made to U.C.S. whilst retaining legal and financial flexibility to help achieve other objectives".

(2) that a successor company is established at Govan/Linthouse, and that Clydebank and Scotstoun be disposed of as soon as possible by the Liquidator".

It then goes on to refer to the programme for the yards, and in paragraph 3.5 states:
"We must emphasise that these recommendations in respect of the continuation of shipbuilding at Govan are conditional on:—

(1) the full co-operation of the Unions in making this venture succeed and, in particular, in the acceptance of shift working of the type suggested above, together with competitive wage rates "

What is meant by "competitive wage rates"? It means that the Upper Clyde workers who are left in the yards after the Government have finished with them will have to accept the kind of conditions which prevail on the lower reaches of the Clyde. No trade unions or members of trade unions will accept a reduction in their standards of living through a reduction in wages and working conditions. But that is what it would mean. I will not go into the other two conditions, although we talk about "satisfactory management". I heard it said the other day that if they have to go to Japan to get satisfactory management they will get the right kind of management.
If we fail to meet any of these conditions the whole of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding structure and of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde will disappear entirely. This is what the Secretary of State has said. We believe that the Ridley report, whether or not the Secretary of State denies knowledge of it, was the blueprint for what is now happening on Clydeside. It has been followed word by word, phrase by phrase and clause by clause. It was presented to the Tory Party before the last election by then Honourable Nicholas Ridley, known on Clydeside today, although the Under-Secretary of State, as Old Nick: the man with the horns, the forked tongue, the spiked tail and the cloven hoof. That is the impression which workers on Clydeside have of the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State as a result of their negotiations

1107
with them since they became respectively Under-Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The report gives little or no information, as my right hon. Friend indicated, on how they arrived at these conclusions. I ask the Secretary of State, or whoever is to reply for the Government, to tell us what will happen in the event of no private capital becoming available to finance the project in which they are ostensibly interested. Will they honour their statements at the Dispatch Box, repeated on a number of occasions, that they will maintain a shipbuilding complex on the upper reaches of the Clyde? Will they put public money into the company? Will they nationalise the industry to ensure that their promises are kept?
What about the yards on the north side of the Clyde? We have heard that people are interested in the yards and have made inquiries. If there is no other way of assisting people who are genuinely interested in maintaining a shipbuilding industry on the north side of the Clyde than Government finance, are they prepared to give those people the necessary finance to develop the yards on the north side to maintain employment there?
Lord Provost Liddell of Glasgow, has indicated that he could have had about £3 million or £4 million of private capital made available if it had not been for the fact that the Government had no intention or no hope of any future shipbuilding unit on the Upper Clyde. Lord Provost Liddell is not a Socialist. He is not an extremist in the trade union sphere either. He happens to be a well known Tory Lord Provost. If he has no faith in the Government providing the support for a shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde, what hope have we of any outsider doing so?
The Clydebank area faces a situation similar to that which prevailed in the 1920s and early 1930s. We are witnessing whole families being affected by this situation. For example, I visited a house last Saturday morning. In that house was a father, two sons, three uncles and two fathers-in-law, all of whom had served their time in the industry. The father had been working in the industry for 47 years. They will all lose their jobs as a result of the Secretary of State's decision. The two sons had equipped
1108
themselves for managerial posts by undergoing courses at the local technical college. One of them has recently bought a house on mortgage. Now their whole future has gone.
The young people in the area, those just leaving school and coming from colleges, having equipped themselves specifically for work in the shipbuilding industry, have no jobs to go to in that area. They will be leaving the town or trying to get deadend jobs elsewhere.
I am astonished that in this Report there is reference to the local authorities. Paragraph 3.1(4) states:
"that every assistance is given by the Government and the Local Authorities in assisting redeployment of redundant staff and workers …"
I should like to know what local authorities were consulted by the four wise men about the way that they could assist in the redeployment of these redundant workers. If they were consulted, will the Secretary of State tell us where they will redeploy them in an area which will achieve an unemployment rate of about 20 per cent.? Where will they be redeployed? In the Glasgow area? Certainly not, because the unemployment situation there is the worst since 1940. Across the river in Govan and Dunbartonshire where the Plessey troubles have occurred? No. There is nowhere in that area where any local authority could be of assistance in the redeployment of these redundant workers. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Brussels."] It is a well known fact that the Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Italians are already looking towards Scottish workers to take up the empty places in their countries. We want our people to be employed on Clydeside doing what they are trained to do. The Tories do not understand that. I am sure that there are many hon. Gentlemen who feel concerned about the situation, but do not understand the people. It is time that they realised what the situation was.
A great deal of criticism is now flowing from the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the decision of the shop stewards and the trade unions in the U.C.S. yards to take over in the way that they have done. This is one of the things to which I have previously drawn attention: that, because of the Government's policy, there would be a

1109
natural reaction on the part of the workers to preserve and protect their jobs and standrads of living. That is exactly what has happened. The only thing is that not only the manual workers are affected. At every level in the shipyard, from the managerial level right down to the workers on the shop floor, they are unanimous that until the Government change their present direction they will stay inside the yard, with the assistance of their workmates in the country outside and overseas.
There are already indications of help from all over the world—messages of sympathy and financial assistance are coming in—to ensure the success of the struggle of these workers.
Today I have sent a telegram to the Provost of Clydebank saying:
"I respectfully call on you, as civic leader, to launch an international appeal for funds to support United Clydebank Ship-Workers Unlimited to finance the continuation of employment for all shipbuilding workers in their own industry on Upper Clyde."
If that call goes out a massive response will result and we shall see funds pouring in far exceeding anything that this Government are prepared to do to sustain the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, or any section of it on the Clydeside. It is astonishing that the Government are willing to pay over £1¼ million to provide a car park at Westminster, but they cannot provide a small amount of money required to continue U.C.S.
There is no point in appealing to the Government to change their mind, because they set out on this road before they were elected last year. All that can be done is to mount the most massive campaign that we have ever seen—and we intend to do this—to bring this Government down and restore the workers' position to what it should be under a new Labour Government.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. Edward Taylor: I am sure that the House will sympathise with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney), bearing in mind that many of his constituents are faced with uncertainty about their future. I hope that the House will forgive my saying a few words, as I represent a constituency in which there are several hundred people who work in the Clyde yards. Before I came to the
1110
House I worked in the Clyde yards as an industrial relations officer. In view of that experience I hope that what I have to say will be helpful.
We must not under-estimate the magnitude of this crisis, or as my right hon. Friend said, the disaster that is facing us in the West of Scotland, where there is the prospect of 8,000 men becoming unemployed. We also have to face unemployment in the suppliers to this assembly industry—affecting perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 men. There are also many people outside the yards, such as small shopkeepers, who depend on the yards for their livelihood. We are doing this in a situation and against a background of many Clydeside closures in recent years—Dennys, Harlands, Barclay Curie, Henderson, Inglis and Blythswood. We also have the appalling background of over 100,000 unemployed in Scotland.
I hope that the House will concentrate on the best way of getting out of the problem, and not refer to the past and allocate responsibility. Those who say that this is part of some massive Tory plot to try to undermine the Upper Clyde are not facing the facts. No Government—of whichever party—would gladly contemplate a situation in which they were creating more unemployment in the circumstances that already exist.
At the same time, I think that some of my hon. Friends are being hard on the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in constantly referring to various comments of his in which he said that no more money would be forthcoming. I know that many of the things that he said could be interpreted in that way, but in this context I think of the New Testament saying about forgiving one's brother not seven times but seven times seventy. Forgiving one's brother in that way does not mean that we say to our brother, "I forgive you and if you steal my wallet another 489 times I shall adopt the same attitude". In the context of what has happened in Upper Clyde it is reasonable to say, "Let us get down to business now in order to overcome our problem".
Those who blame the situation on the workers of Upper Clyde are also being unfair to them. I have seen the men who work there, and the report that we have received proves beyond a shadow of doubt that even if every man working in

1111
the Upper Clyde was an industrial angel—and I am sure that the men in any factory in Britain are not that—and if they had worked seven days a week without a day off and without striking the yards, in their present situation, could not have paid. It is wrong to allocate the entire responsibility to the men.
We must remember the enormous progress that has been made not only in steel production but also on the question of the integration of the trade union organisation. Some of my colleagues say, "Why not have one union instead of hundreds?" They fail to realise that in recent years most shipyards not only in the Clyde but all over Britain the platers, the caulkers, welders, drillers and the shipwrights have all come together in one union, and old demarcation problems have ceased to exist. Terrific progress has been made in this direction. In addition, the simplification of the wages structure in the Upper Clyde has been a great step forward.
The report clearly shows that we have three choices. First, we can carry on as before, with the Government providing a great deal more capital to preserve U.C.S. and avoid liquidation. It is clear from the report that U.C.S. as at present constituted—loaded with debts, uneconomic contracts and insufficient orders—could not succeed unless the Government were prepared to provide money and a number of orders.
The second possibility is to allow the Clyde to go—to say that because it cannot economically succeed we should let it go and hope that with the normal disciplines of a capitalist economy new firms will come forward which may provide profitable employment. Nobody on either side of the House will accept that possibility, given the present unemployment situation in Scotland.
The third alternative is to try to save the part of Upper Clyde that can become viable and economic. It is rather strange to see that the Geddes solution—based on the principle that size was the answer, with all the economies of large-scale production, and the rest—has not worked. Scott-Lithgow refused to come into U.C.S., while smaller fry, like Barclay Curie (Elderslie), which are repairing on in the Upper Clyde, are still doing pretty well.
Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Scott-Lithgow. Did I understand him to say that that firm is not coming to the Upper Clyde? Why should it? It ran out three years ago.
Mr. Taylor: I simply said that the Geddes Report suggested that we should have a tie-in of the upper reaches and the lower reaches of the Clyde. That has not emerged. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Report he will find that that is the case.
I want to put a few straight questions to my right hon. Friend, and I hope that he will be able to help us in this situation. We know that the Government have committed themselves, in what they have said, to providing funds for the continuation of Fairfields' and Stephens', subject to certain conditions. That, at least, is something.
The second thing that we are concerned about is the position of Connell's and Brown's. According to the Report those yards, after working through their present orders, should cease to function. My hope is that buyers may emerge for the Connell yard, which has a fine tradition—the Connell family has played a real part in making it an efficient yard—and which, when I was working in the yards, had about the highest steel output of any of the firms on the Upper Clyde. In case a buyer should wish to clinch the deal and set up in business, perhaps building for one company, in the form of an integrated shipbuilding and shipping group, I hope that the Government will make it clear that they have not closed their minds to providing financial assistance for such an enterprise. This would certainly help a great deal, and we might consider either Connell's or Brown's doing something apart from traditional shipbuilding. Would the Government make clear that they have not closed their minds to that, if a buyer were to emerge?
What about alternative jobs? Not only do we have the prospect of redundancies on the Upper Clyde, but we have the question of the build-up of work on the lower reaches, and in Yarrow's. The position of Yarrow's is crucial, bearing in mind its situation and its relationship with Glasgow. Naval work is crucial here. Stephens', Brown's, and Fairfields' used to build frigates, and there was even the prospect of an aircraft carrier before

1113
certain changes were made in our defence policy.
The future level of naval orders in Yarrow's is crucial to the redeployment of manpower. Will the Government make clear that there is no question of their turning away any naval orders which might be available to this country, from whichever country they might come? [Interruption.] That, I am sure, would be most helpful.
Mr. James Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if one has certain principles, one does not submerge those principles to meet a contingency? Is there not some other way, without submerging our principles?
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that we shall never submerge any principles, but in any consideration of the situation on Clydeside we must bear in mind that naval orders might become available, including orders for ships which could protect the Cape route which is crucial to the defence of Great Britain. I hope that, if such orders are offered, they will not be turned down for any political reasons.
Again, on the question of the lower reaches, if we are to build up employment there, not only do we need the present orders but Scotts' Shipbuilding Company, who have done so much in naval work, will be looking for expansion there, too. I hope that in any future allocation of naval contracts the lower reaches will be regarded as available and eligible for whatever work is going.
Next, the question of subsidies. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Government, through the O.E.C.D. and our other friends abroad, will look at the question of subsidising shipbuilding? We know that many countries provide State subsidies for shipbuilding. We know also that our own ship owners receive valuable concessions from this Government. Some years ago, an attempt was made to find out, through the O.E.C.D., whether the levels of subsidy in some countries were higher than in others. At the time, it seemed that Italy was way ahead in the league but that Britain, when everything was taken into account, provided direct or indirect subsidies which were not altogether out of line with what was provided by our
1114
main competitors. It seemed that the Japanese were subsidising less.
We ought to have some sort of agreement throughout the world to the effect that countries will not subsidise unfairly simply to pinch work uneconomically from their competitors.
I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is to pay a visit to the Upper Clyde tomorrow. Looking to the future, may we hope for a real endeavour from the Government, after the initial shock, as it were, to try to create circumstances in which management and men can work together and make the very best out of this crisis and save every possible job that we can? Some harsh things have been said by the men's leaders, by politicians and by others, but, once the initial shock is over, if we are to save at least some jobs, if not all the jobs, there must be the maximum co-operation and good will in working towards that end.
Everyone in the House who has experience of the union movement on Clydeside knows that the confederation of unions, which covers all the unions involved in shipbuilding, is led by men who can be co-operative, who can, I believe, work with anyone, if it is in the interests of the members of their unions who work in the yards. I earnestly hope that that situation can be achieved. If it is not, there will be no question of all jobs or just some jobs; there will be no jobs. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members want to see a state of affairs emerge in which we save as many jobs as possible on Clydeside and have a really viable industry.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. William Small: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who sometimes writes comments in the Evening Citizen about my style and the quality of ties I wear. Today, I am wearing the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding tie in the form of a Maltese cross—I hope not for the last time. I want no crucifixion on the Upper Clyde or any other form of cross for the workers there to have to bear.
The hon. Gentleman made Biblical allusions. I am equally able to take references from the Bible. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for

1115
Trade and Industry can be described as the Ishmalite, the man with his hand against everyone, and—just as one can read in Ezekiel—he is leaving behind him a valley of dry bones.
I address the House today as someone who has been here before. I am probably the richest man in the House in terms of unemployment and experience of what it means. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister present because, whatever else may be said, I recognise that he has certain skills and he can fairly be described as a good shiphandler. It is a good shiphandler that we are looking for now, and I address myself especially to the Prime Minister.
The trouble with the Department of Trade and Industry is that it has no youth department. What is the expectation of youth on the Clyde now? I opened the training establishment at Yarrow's a month after the right hon. Gentleman opened the covered berths. We both sat at the high table. The boys on the Clyde now are rather short on table manners. They do not understand parliamentary etiquette and equally Erskine May. They are worried about something infinitely more important. What is happening there now is a work-in. It may turn out to be just gesture politics, but at present it ought to be seen for what it is, a meaningful demonstration.
I do not like what I can only describe as the "opinion editing" in the White Paper. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in cataloguing what took place. I know these yards. I have been round them all, and I know every top personality in them. I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Douglas.
Comments are made about the level of wages. In the Government's own philosophy, what is wrong with the workers pushing their luck in terms of wage rates? What is indecent about it? There is a price to be paid for labour. One of the problems in our modern society—I speak as an ex-shop steward who has had experience on the Clyde—is that the job and responsibilities of the shop steward are the most ill defined of all. What do we believe is the rôle of the shop steward, and what degree of cooperation or militancy in winning a battle
1116
do we expect from him? The people who ought to be respected, when the unions are united in looking for the salvation of the Upper Clyde, are the shop stewards, and the rôle which they take is of the utmost importance. They ought not to be caricatured as they are by some people.
I speak here as an ex-shop steward and one who has experienced unemployment. The "non-genuinely seeking work" clause does not matter when there is no job to be had. That is the position on the Upper Clyde today. The shop stewards are some of the most valuable men at the moment, and, whether on questions of redundancy pay, take-home pay or administration, they will be the advisers. I hope they do not have to advise overmuch in some of these things.
I know something about Yarrow's about Connell's and about them all. What I fear—I hope that it is not true—is that what is said about Yarrow's has a political background. If this was written by the four wise men, I want to know what the political tenor and nuances are with reference to possible naval work. If Yarrow's is an established British naval shipbuilding unit on the Clyde, in competition with Cammell Laird, Vickers or someone else, is the idea at the back of it that the Scottish part of the industry can be depressed so that we will welcome anything which brings us money? If that is the style of the document, it must have been written not by the four wise men, but by a political person.
The content of the Report surprises me. It lays down conditions for negotiations with established institutions. Paragraph 3.5 seems to be an incantation of what people would like to see. The conditions given there should be placed in the reverse order, so that the first would be
"satisfactory management."
The second would remain
"adequate capital being forthcoming."
We all agree that there has been a shortage of capital all along the line, and the argument was not always about wage rates. The general problem was the shortage of investment. Yarrow's did get a covered shipbuilding berth which is probably one of the best in the world. The other condition is
"the full co-operation of the Unions …".

1117
That co-operation will be forthcoming, but the question of
"competitive wage rates"
is a matter for negotiation once there is satisfactory management. If I were a shop steward, and thought that I was up against a bum crew, when it came to arguing for wages I would know what to do.
In shipyards, as anywhere else, when people are in difficulty they like to see the manager near at hand. When miners are in trouble they like to see the pit manager close to the face. I hope that Mr. Douglas is in charge or has something to do with the negotiations. When a man enjoys the confidence of the workers and the workers are prepared to work for him, things go better. Workers do have bad managers, but they like their own bad managers, because they are part of the family. They respect a manager's decisions if they are seen to be fair. That is what the argument will be about.
I am concerned about the state of play. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will have second thoughts. There is nothing wrong in having second thoughts and looking at a wider picture. Shipbuilders in Japan, West Germany and Sweden must be rubbing their hands over the situation in Britain. Any slice off the British shipbuilding potential is an encouragement to others elsewhere. When I read the Report, I find myself mourning a governmental disaster.
There is a saying that the sun will shine tomorrow. That is a doubtful hypothesis for the Upper Clyde. I hope that the Government will apply themselves to the third factor—the quality of life of the people there. If the Prime Minister is looking for a foreign policy, I will give him one. It is far better to support Celtic and Rangers. Real Madrid and Barcelona have more power than Franco. The same sort of thing goes for Dynamoes and Spartak. The sporting affairs of a big city can more or less be equated with its foreign policy. I have more faith in that international language than in the diplomats.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I understand the strong feelings of Labour hon. Members, and to a large extent I share them. But emotional ecstasy does not always lead to clear think-
1118
ing.The Labour Party seems to suffer from a psychological disease that makes hon. Members opposite see in every decision of the Government not a practical reaction to unpalatable facts but the outcome of sinister designs against ordinary people. Thus, to them the situation on the Upper Clyde is not a distressing case of business failure, which is what it unfortunately amounts to, but the implementation of the so called Ridley plan, which we hear so much about these days, to sabotage the industry—as if any Government or any person would deliberately wish to sabotage any industry that was doing well. We have only to think calmly about the matter to see how ridiculous the suggestion is.
But fact and fiction are not always clearly separated in the minds of hon. Members opposite, nor are they always accurate in what they say, certainly not in describing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a butcher. They have got the vowel wrong, and they are gunning at the wrong man. It is not my right hon. Friend who is a butcher, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) described him, but it is the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) who is a botcher. For it is his scheme that has gone down in ruins, causing great personal hardship, as I warned him years ago was likely to be the outcome of the unnatural amalgamation he insisted on foisting upon Clydeside.
The right hon. Gentleman is not only a botcher who makes a mess of things. He is also a bit of a hypocrite, for he is now giving the impression that he stands for unlimited subsidising of the Upper Clyde. That is a cruel pose for popularity's sake. We know that he does not really mean it. We do not need to bother with precisely what he said, what warnings he gave or did not give to Upper Clyde when he was a Minister. We need only to look at what he actually did to the Greenock Dry Dock, which was to allow that company to go into liquidation—the very thing, to listen to him now, we should think would happen only over his dead body.
In what respect did the Greenock Dry Dock then differ from Upper Clyde now? However much we may regret it, however severe the social damage and personal hardship—and no one could sympathise with the men more, or understand their

1119
feelings better, than I do—there comes a time when it is no longer justifiable to keep baling out a company that cannot make both ends meet. Why should Upper Clyde alone get that special treatment? If it is right to shield Upper Clyde from economic reality, why should not every business and firm in trouble be able to go to the Government for help?
We are discussing a fundamental principle, not just a matter that is important for Glasgow or even for the whole of Scotland. It affects the very foundations upon which the whole of industry in the United Kingdom functions, because, to put it crudely, it is the desire for profit—that horrid word to Labour hon. Members—or the fear of bankruptcy which create the framework of reality within which industry can operate efficiently. Remove that framework, which is what the Opposition suggest, and there is no basis of knowing which business should expand or which contract, which should be allowed to go on or which should be got rid of.
Even in the nationalised industries it has been found necessary to impose a financial discipline, which has had the effect of reducing the size of many of them. For example, the coal industry and the railways have been reduced. So nationalising the Upper Clyde would not provide the answer.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the diabolical system he is describing should be allowed to continue or that there should be some method of interfering with it?
Mr. Galbraith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he does not realise that there has got to be a profit at the end of the day in all industry, whether private or nationalised. Even in the nationalised industries, it has been found necessary to impose financial disciplines. Nationalising U.C.S. would not provide the certainty of preserving the company in its present size, which naturally is what the men want.
Where the right hon. Gentleman made his initial mistake way back in 1967 was precisely in trying to preserve too much. I wish at that time he had heeded my
1120
fears, which I had hoped, as a former Civil Lord with responsibility for the industry and as a Clydesider naturally sympathetic to it, might have carried some weight with him. If he had listened to those fears instead of failing to prune the industry then, he might have avoided this major disaster now. If he had done that, some of the firms would probably have gone under but others would be viable units today—instead of which, because of his ambitions, the whole lot have gone down.
The only chance of saving some shipbuilding on the Clyde is to concentrate everything on the one yard that has had most spent upon it recently. There is no other proper practical course open. That is why it is so unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to raise false hopes in the workers by encouraging them to believe that there is a future for the whole company as it exists and that occupying the yards is a viable alternative to concentrating the work in one of them. If they really care about shipbuilding on the Clyde and for the welfare of the men and the families concerned, the Opposition will not encourage them in these revolutionary ideas of taking over the yards and breaking the law. That is pure fantasy. It is living in the realm of make-believe.
Sometimes it is necessary to be cruel in order to be kind. The proposal of the Government may seem cruel but it is kind. It is facing up to the facts. It is trying to save from the debris of disaster and illusion created by the last Government the core of viability which remains and which, with the co-operation of all of us, will enable some shipbuilding still to continue on the Clyde. It is in this spirit of seeing the truth at last, after years of make-believe and of trying to save what is possible to save, that I hope the House will give its blessing, though sorrowful, to the harsh choice that the Government, in the interests of Clydeside itself, have had to make. I appeal to the Opposition to listen to common sense and banish emotion. I also appeal to the Government to remember, as I am sure they do, that human lives are involved and to do all they can to provide them with the dignity of new jobs.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: I fear that the speech of the hon. Member

1121
for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) represents the typical opinion among hon. Members opposite. I much preferred what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) had to say. I did not agree with his conclusions and I think that he skilfully avoided some of the major issues, but nevertheless he spoke with some detailed knowledge of this industry and with a concern for it which I do not find present in other hon. Members opposite. It is a pity for Scotland at this time that so few Scottish Tory Members know anything about the shipbuilding industry or, indeed, about Scottish industry as a whole.
The hon. Member for Hillhead, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, attempted to lay a great deal of the blame for the present situation on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The Secretary of State is very anxious that we should accept his good will and sensitive feelings in these matters. He is sensitive to the criticism that he approached this problem without due regard to the social and human consequences of the Government's decision. I say straightforwardly to him that I am willing to accept his protestations today but that, if he expects us to accept what he says, he must not at the same time deal in what I think is a thoroughly nauseating way with the position of my right hon. Friend and attempt to place all the blame on him. That cuts no ice in Scotland because it is well appreciated there that, if it had not been for the actions taken by the Labour Government, shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde would have disappeared completely several years ago. That is the fact of the situation. The Labour Government saved Fairfields and then shipbuilding generally on the Upper Clyde. It is rank hypocrisy by hon. Members opposite—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Cathcart recognised it—to attack my right hon. Friend in the way they have been doing.
The right hon. Gentleman did not really answer any of the specific points made by my right hon. Friend in what I thought was a brilliant speech. The real answer is simple—a Select Committee of the House. Let us by all means look into the affairs of U.C.S. from the beginning. My right hon. Friend has called for that on numerous occasions.
1122
Why do not the Government establish a Select Committee? I should like to see the whole history of U.C.S. laid bare, and all those who have been responsible for its management and direction in any way right from the inception questioned by a Select Committee. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman and his Government colleagues so questioned. I should like to see all the facts about this affair made public. That, of course, is precisely the attitude of my right hon. Friend. Either the Government should announce tonight that they are establishing a Select Committee to look into the history of the affair or they should desist from this flagrant, unfair and hypocritical attempt to place the blame on my right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Gentleman answered none of the specific points put by my right hon. Friend. He did not answer the point about what the position was as recently as February this year. A few days ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House that the Government accountants had seen the books of U.C.S., had gone over its financial circumstances in February last and had been persuaded, along with the company's own accountants, that the company was then viable. It is an extraordinary situation and says a good deal for the implications of the whole relationship between Government and industry which goes well beyond U.C.S. and Rolls-Royce and many other matters if the statement is true that in February the Government's own accountants were persuaded that the company was viable and yet in June it went into liquidation with considerable deficiencies.
What happened between February and June? There was little change in the circumstances. If the company was nonviable in June, it was non-viable in February. Yet the Government believed it to be viable in February. We had the statements by the right hon. Gentleman about the capital reconstruction which the independent firm of Thomson McLintock, chartered accountants, had been working on since December. We were told that no details could be given to the House because the details had not been worked out. The Under-Secretary of State later told us that the details had been worked out but it was only the other

1123
day that we got the information. In any case, the capital reconstruction was never completed before liquidation.
This is part of the history that we should have elucidated. We need not go back to 1968 or 1967, although I should be happy to do so. If we could get elucidation tonight of what happened after February this year, we should get a better understanding of the situation.
Nor have we yet been told everything about the Yarrow situation. My information is that the £4½ million which the Government gave to Yarrow's in February as working capital was required to meet losses already sustained by the Yarrow division of U.C.S. Yarrow's had been largely a loss maker. The Government decided to bail out Yarrow's for defence considerations, although they decided later not to give the additional financial assistance that U.C.S. asked for.
We want the position of Yarrow's to be elucidated. My right hon. Friend was accurate when he said that Sir Eric Yarrow and his colleagues had had an extremely good bargain from the Government. They have come out of this with the company intact and with large sums of Government money, and it has cost them virtually nothing. Incidentally, it has the only substantial piece of capital investment, in the form of the covered berth, completed in U.C.S. over the last two or three years. All this should be elucidated. We ought to know the position of the Government director and be told about the various meetings which he had with Ministers and with officials from October to the date of the collapse, because he was meeting them regularly.
We should know something more about the financial reports. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, these were not generalised, vague reports, but detailed reports ship by ship and contract by contract, breaking down costs into labour costs, material costs and so on. They gave forecasts of cash flow and so forth for 12 months ahead. Were those reports accurate? If they were, why were not the Government informed about the situation? If they were inaccurate, was that because of the inadequacy of the company's accountants, or some intention on the part of the management to mislead the Government?
1124
All these are very important questions. I do not want to spend a lot of time going back into the history of this affair, but these questions must be answered and if they are not answered tonight, we must have a Select Committee to look into these and other questions about the whole history of the U.C.S. affair which hon. Members opposite or my hon. Friends want to have answered. If we are to be treated to these condemnations of my right hon. Friend and simultaneously to a complete lack of frankness with the House, such as we have had from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues over the last few months, we are faced with a shameful state of affairs.
I come to the report of the expert advisers. It is completely inadequate. It is an absolute insult that 15,000 jobs are affected and yet a miserable three page document of this sort is presented to the House. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise this, and if he does not, as plainly he does not, that is simply another demonstration of his complete lack of sensitivity in these matters and his complete failure to understand the feeling in Clydeside and in Scotland generally on this matter.
We have a report which dismisses Clydebank in half a sentence. A town cannot be condemned to death in half a sentence in a three-page report. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that this report has evinced the maximum hostility not just among workers in the yard, but throughout Clydeside. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that there is strong and angry feeling about the Government in the yards themselves and generally in the community in the Clydeside area.
Having created the maximum hostility, the right hon. Gentleman has compounded the offence by a highly misleading reference in the House last Thursday to 400 redundancies. The liquidator announced the very next day that those 400 redundancies would be in August and that in September there would be 1,000 more. These were not redundancies to occur in the months or years ahead. Scotstoun was to be closed by the end of the year and Clydebank next March. We are talking of 5,000 or 6,000 redundancies within a measurable period when we have more than 10 per cent. of the male population in Glasgow unemployed

1125
and when the situation in some surrounding areas is even worse and when the Clydebank situation will be disastrous if this plan is carried through.
There was an alternative, and my right hon. Friend described it very briefly this afternoon. I have never taken the view, and nor has my right hon. Friend, that millions of pounds of public money should be poured into U.C.S. regardless of the viability and the prospective viability of the yard, regardless of the state of the management and regardless of the general shipbuilding position and so on.
The view we have taken is that there should be appropriate support in a situation in which, as is well known, the British shipbuilding industry as a whole requires support and in that characteristic, incidentally, is following the shipbuilding industries of the rest of the world. U.C.S. requires support and to be sustained until it can be put on a viable basis. I believe, and nothing said in the report has shaken this belief, that U.C.S. could have been made viable with something like the number of men now employed by U.C.S.
If there is a case against that view, it should have been put into the report and we should not have been put in the position of simply being asked to accept the word of four outside advisers. Who do they think they are? There is a tremendous conceit in this. The Under-Secretary told the House the other night, with absolute arrogance, that if he told us something, we had to accept it without question. We have the same kind of attitude in this report and we had it from the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday and again today.
I believe that U.C.S. could have been sustained. That might have involved redeployment; it might have involved double shift working; it might have involved new management and it obviously should have involved changes in management; and it might have involved changes in industrial relations. All these things were required and they could have been accepted by the workers if they had been put in the context of a report and of a Government decision on that report which showed that the Government were influenced by the human and social consequences on Clydeside and that they were directed to maintaining the maxi
1126
mum employment in the Upper Clyde. The right hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land, to borrow the phrase of the hon. Member for Hillhead, if he expects a chance of the kind of solution which the Government have proposed being accepted by the workers on Clyde-side and, incidentally, if he expects private capital to be interested.
The report cannot be accepted and the Government's decision cannot be accepted. It will have to be withdrawn if Upper Clyde is to be secure in any shape or form. I believe that that can still be done on the lines which my right hon. Friend and I have described. It will not be easy, particularly in the atmosphere of hostility and bitterness which the Government's decision of last week created in Clydeside. Nor will it be cheap, but it will not be more expensive than the solution now being adopted, if account is taken of redundancy payments, unemployment benefit, and the need to put money into the reconstruction of the company and the need to bring new jobs to Clydeside, and so on.
It will not be easy or cheap, but it must be done if the Government are to restore their credibility not only in Clydeside, but in Scotland. In Scotland we are facing a desperate unemployment situation. We are facing a lack of confidence among both management and men which we have never known, at least not in the 12 years that I have represented a Glasgow constituency. Only the Government can restore some of that confidence, and the first thing they must do is to withdraw this ill-conceived plan and produce another which will give hope and confidence and the prospect of success to both management and men in Upper Clyde.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: The nature of the problems which confront U.C.S. and the sad history which produced them has been clouded over during the last few days by the concern felt by hon. and right hon. Gentleman on all sides of the House for the future of the men working at U.C.S. and the thousands more employed by firms which depend on U.C.S. for their orders. Unemployment in Scotland is already intolerably high and the prospect of more men losing their jobs could not come at an unhappier time.

1127
I said in our debate on the Scottish economy on 13th July that the U.C.S. problem concerns everyone in Scotland, first, because the repercussions of the situation will be felt very widely indeed, and second, because every Scot has affection and pride for the great traditions of Clydeside. Employment in my constituency is not directly affected by the U.C.S. collapse but every area in Scotland, including my own, depends on confidence and growth in the whole Scottish economy, and those qualities have been put at risk.
The risk springs in my view not so much from the U.C.S. tragedy as from the impression being created, not least by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Scotland itself is in decline, and therefore not a place to be favoured by expanding industry. This is a totally false impression. Despite the grave problems in Clydeside, and they could hardly be graver, despite the succession of reverses suffered by some sections of Scottish industry, the basic pattern of industry in Scotland is healthy because we have moved to a new industrial structure which has a growing stake in the new sophistication of technological advance. It is from that modern and new base that our future progress will grow. Clearly, that progress will depend on the development and expansion of the total United Kingdom economy and I therefore welcome the action taken by the Government last month to spur on growth and to revive the confidence which will produce the expansion we so desperately need in Scotland.
There has been widespread and bitter recrimination about the events leading to the U.C.S. tragedy. I suggest that argument about who was or was not responsible does not help the present very much and contributes nothing to the future. But right hon. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) have been so busy accusing the present Government and have done so much to whip up feeling on Clydeside, that it is worth while remembering his own participation in this tragedy.
Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
Mr. MacArthur: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you wish to see a memorial to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, look around U.C.S.
1128
Let hon. Gentlemen opposite compare what they say today with what the Advisory Group reported a day or two ago. It was the Labour Government which brought U.C.S. into existence. Today, the right hon. Gentleman tried to shuffle off his responsibility, but at least he will agree that' he certainly adopted this clumsy child. The Report states that this creation of his had:
"a totally mistaken initial structure."
The Labour Government repeatedly poured money into the company in the belief that it would become viable. But the report shows the extent of the financial implications. Losses from pre-existing contracts were estimated at £3½ million but in the event totalled over £12 million. Further losses on new contracts were estimated at just under £5 million but totalled about £10 million.
Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Gentleman address his mind to the point he has raised, namely, that there were £12 million losses for these five companies, every one of which would have been totally bankrupt with 100 per cent. unemployment if U.C.S. had not been brought forward, by the companies, to the Government?
Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this shows how totally false these forecasts were, just as the right hon. Gentleman beside him was totally wrong about his forecasts for the Scottish economy.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) promised 60,000 extra jobs for Scotland. He failed, and lost 82,000 on top of them. All those forecasts made by the Labour Government were hollow and bogus.
The result of the miscalculations by right hon. Gentlemen has been that vast sums of public funds have vanished. The whole investment of taxpayers' money made by the Labour Government has melted away with nothing to show except disaster.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East himself recognised that this continuing subsidy must stop and that the company must acquire a new structure. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1969 he made various statements which completely contradict the line he now takes. I quote

1129
from just one extract although there are pages of it. This is on page 265, paragraph 1456, when he says:
"My own view is that if we had at any stage even now said 'We will give you whatever you need' we should have deferred the vital decisions that had to be taken by the company to staunch the losses and we should have begun a permanent subsidy of a company that would then ultimately have collapsed in conditions of great tragedy for those involved, at the expense meanwhile of the viability of other shipbuilding groups."
But now the right hon. Gentleman appears to insist that the Government should go on subsidising the company. The justification he advances is that it will become viable, or would do, if it was supported in this way. In the debate on the Scottish economy on 13th July, the right hon. Gentleman called on the Government to give the company
"… the resources to allow it to move into viability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 255.]
Refusal to provide this blank cheque of resources is the linch-pin of his whole argument.
Early this year but as late as the spring, U.C.S. appeared to believe that it had turned the corner. Yet in June it asked, not for another £5 million as suggested earlier, but for £5 million to £6 million and proposed in addition to pay off its creditors at 33p in the £. Far more than £5 million to £6 million was involved in that request, and there was no clear statement of when the company would become solvent again, if at all. That I remind the House, was against the background in which this request was made—one of impending bankruptcy, suddenly discovered by the management—so suddenly that it could not pay the wages for the following week.
The Report gives a totally different picture from that painted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The suggestion that U.C.S. has improved its structure has been knocked sideways by the Report. The Report said:
"no improvement in facilities, no worthwhile investment has been made."
So there has been no development to create greater viability. Indeed, the Report says that:
"… any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified and, indeed, could cause serious and more widespread damage."
1130
There are only two courses open to the Government.
One is to retain the present structure, inefficient, with a dangerously thin order book, and a future that will demand constant subsidy or an even larger collapse. There is no security of employment on this shaky base. The other course is to save what can viably be saved, and this is what the report proposes. In that way at least a large number of secure and long-term jobs will be produced, and that surely is the quality of employment which we need in Scotland—secure and long-term employment.
At least 1,000 jobs are immediately available elsewhere on the Clyde. The growth of Govan will produce more than the initial 2,500 jobs suggested in the Report. Successful disposal of the other yards will also retain jobs for some.
But whatever the pattern, there will be many redundancies in the end. This is the social problem which confronts us all. These men cannot be discarded simply as the price to be paid for incompetent intervention by a Labour Government. We need a constructive programme of special help, retraining, and careful redeployment in a situation of economic growth JO that we may lessen the real and personal tragedies in this wholly tragic affair.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), I shall be brief. Nor do I intend to go over the past, save to applaud the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), repeated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in a particularly fine speech, that a Select Committee should be set up to establish the truth, for there is clearly a conflict over precisely what is the truth. I see no reason for the Government to resist this request.
In the short time at my disposal I wish to look ahead. The Government have a responsibility to maintain these skilled men in employment. It is no use using words, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did, like "redeployment". The action must be practical, definite and immediate.
A number of proposals have been made. As the hon. Member for Craigton

1131
said, it will not be easy to solve this problem. Government action may mitigate the difficulties, but a number of world factors are in operation which cannot be set aside. The debate is, in many ways, not only about Upper Clyde but about the future of the whole of the Clyde as a major shipbuilding centre of the world.
When I spoke in the debate on the Scottish economy on 13th July I drew attention to a proposal that had been made by Mr. R. A. Robertson of Hutchison Engineering. Mr. Robertson, is highly experienced in shipbuilding and knows what he is talking about. He has been industrial adviser to the Scottish Liberal Party for about five years. His proposal has since received considerable publicity, both in the Scottish Daily Express on 26th July and in an editorial in the Scotsman on 30th July. Jack McGill, Industrial Correspondent of the Daily Express, wrote:
"The scheme, if given backing by the Government and the Steel Corporation, could place shipbuilding in line with the Japanese groups which have shipyards next door to steel plants. And it would give a new steel complex at Hunterston a guaranteed customers using about 2 million tons of steel a year".
The editorial in the Scotsman followed the same tack and said:
"The Clyde has a long and illustrious association with shipbuilding. But an issue that ought to be objectively faced is whether the Upper Clyde can hold a worth-while place in world shipbuilding indefinitely. Is a movement down the estuary not inevitable and, if so, would it not be much better to plan a new modern industry in close co-operation with the proposed integrated steel works at Hunterston? A holding operation in U.C.S. and a bold forward plan could inspire confidence".
That seems to offer the answer, and I spoke about this last month.
If speeches in this House mean anything—and I sometimes wonder whether they do—and if Ministers take cognisance of informed comment outside, then on what basis has any consideration of this proposal been set aside?
Is it because the Minister sees no long-term future for shipbuilding on the Clyde in the big league? This view has been expressed. Is it, on the other hand—this, too, is worrying some people in Scotland—that despite the right hon. Gentle-
1132
man having mortgaged his future on the Hunterston steel complex, in the end it will not go ahead? That is a current rumour in Scotland.
I will briefly repeat what I believe represents the only coherent answer to this tragedy. First, there should be a holding operation at U.C.S., and it should involve private enterprise, the Government and the B.S.C. Second, there should simultaneously be constructed a new super yard on the Lower Clyde into which U.C.S. would be phased. Third, we must realise that both operations are dependent on the go-ahead at Hunterston, which the right hon. Gentleman has pledged will take place. All these steps are linked with Oceanspan and the idea of a deep water terminal.
I said at the beginning that this debate is about the future of the Clyde and not just about Upper Clyde. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), who knows the position well—who knows the men, their families and their commitments—I urge the Minister to think again on an issue that is vital for Scotland and the Clyde.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I, too, shall be brief, and in doing so I wish to deal with an aspect of our problem which has not received much attention.
A lot has been said about the period since 1967. I want to go back to 1964, for at the root of the present difficulties, and the trouble that has blown up in the last three years—trouble which the Government are not facing up to adequately—are occurrences prior to 1967.
While I appreciate that the Minister is trying to solve this problem and while I accept that in his view he is spending a lot of money, I urge him to accept that he is not spending nearly sufficient to tackle the job that lies ahead. The solution demands more investment than he is prepared to make, and it is clear that on this as on other matters he has changed what was Labour policy.
One Sunday morning in 1964 I received an urgent message saying that I was expected to attend a meeting of shop stewards at Fairfields Yard that evening. I was told that the then owners, Lithgow's, were leaving Fairfields to go to

1133
Lower Clydeside. About 3,000 workmen at Fairfields were given a week's notice that Lithgow's were flitting, leaving the yard and the men with absolutely no future.
It was calculated that £1 million would help the yard to survive, and I had to be the instrument of finding the money. I came to London and asked the then Prime Minister, who mercifully was a Socialist, for £1 million. Having listened to the Secretary of State today, I need not wonder for long what his answer would have been. I will not name the then Prime Minister. He is sufficiently well know especially on these benches, for me simply to say that he told me, in effect, "Do not worry. The million is safe. You can go back and tell that to the workers on Clydeside." That is precisely what I did.
I brought new life and hope to the men, but our troubles were only just beginning. We had £1 million with which to start, but to make this launching place reasonably usuable that sum was not enough even to begin looking at a corner of our problem. This is still true and is basically still the problem. Although the Government may recognise the problem—I do not doubt their word about that—I tell them they are not spending nearly sufficient, and that problem of expenditure did not start in 1967 but before 1964, although there have been adjustments, as we know, and it has been growing ever since.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has thought what kinds of problems there are within a yard. I wonder whether he has ever glimpsed a yard such as I know well which only six years ago was a muddy squashy heap in which to work. There were few facilities. Men have to be educated, however, for this work. So we had a small school in one part of the yard, but for practical purposes so small a place was not much use. It was merely a gesture. However, after only three years of Labour Government and of Labour looking after Fairfields we had one of the best equipped educational centres of any possessed by any shipyard in the whole of Britain. We have it in Govan still. The right hon. Gentleman can see for himself to verify what I am saying. It is competent; well equipped; but still insufficiently equipped
1134
for training the men for this industry: that is, to train them in all the knowledge and knowhow which is needed. That is why it is necessary to have a school and to have teachers. In 1964 we had little of that. As I say, we got it right away from the Labour Government, but it is still not big enough.
So I tell the right hon. Gentleman, we need still more money. When he goes to Clydeside—tomorrow, I believe—I wonder if he will take the time—I know he will not regard is as a trouble— to see the office for those who are responsible for general working conditions and for seeing that the jobs are carried out; the shop stewards. Will he see where they work? Their conditions are a disgrace. Their office is quite unsatisfactory. They are disgraceful conditions for the educated lads who today have to perform this particular work. They have no obvious usable sanitation. The men who work there, as has been emphasised by every speaker from either side of the House in the debate have a responsible and big job to do. [Interruption.] I wish these half-heard interruptions would not persist across the Floor of the House while I am speaking. I know I have a limited time in which to speak and I shall observe the limitation.
We want these men who have these responsible jobs to be housed in offices and under conditions which are comparable with those in which the owners of the yard operate, in which the bosses operate. We want them to have this sort of equality—if I may so put it, to have that social status. They ought to be decently housed in their parts of the yard because, as has been inherent in almost every speech today, and although much blame has been attached to some of them, in their own way they have as great a responsibility for the success of the yard as have the owners themselves.
I am dealing with these conditions because I have seen them, and have seen how bad they can be, and they are the social conditions which obtain in some yards. Six years ago in Fairfields there was not a place in the office where a girl could get a cup of tea; it had to be brought in and she had to drink it in her part of the office. There was no rest room where tea or lunch could be served in conditions more in keeping with the age in which we are living.

1135
I know I am bound to a certain time limit, and that I shall observe, but, having listened to so much today about the amount of money which was being spent in keeping shipbuilding going, I felt I should like to point out if I got the opportunity that while I recognise that this is a good investment it is still not enough, because there is so much needed in the supporting services for this great industry which is not being adequately catered for. I want to make that quite clear, and I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is spending too much he will have another thought about it and pay some attention to what I have said and approach this problem of expenditure from a different angle. I hope he will consider the conditions and services which exist for the men and women who are serving in these yards and that he will unloosen his purse-strings.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: This has been a worth-while debate, although—let us face it—it has been a debate which no single right hon. or hon. Member on the other side of the House wanted. It is one of the things to be remembered that when the House was asked whether we should have this debate—and it required the support of a certain number of Members—not one single Member on the Government side rose in support of having it.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Not even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor).
Mrs. Ross: That will not be forgotten. This has been a worth-while debate. Those who thought that it would be a slashing attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) got their answer. I have never heard a more devastating, analytical, summing-up of all the arguments, all the facts and all the dates than the speech of my right hon. Friend to destroy the case which the right hon. Gentleman was going to make.
I was involved, too, with U.C.S. and the shipbuilding industry. Remember, not a single vote was cast against the Shipbuilding Industry Bill; anyone who knew anything about shipbuilding welcomed it. Only one person on the Government side who knows anything about the shipbuilding industry has spoken today,
1136
and that is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who resigned from the Government last week on a different issue. His was the only speech which showed a consciousness of the gravity of the situation and of the Government's decision.
The right hon. Gentleman said that after I had seen these four men I had said that they were not men who were out to do a hatchet job. That shows how mistaken one can be. In the discussions that we had with them, there was no indication that they would put pen to such a report. That report, read carefully, does no credit to any of these gentlemen. It is a political document.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was ludicrous even to mention the Ridley report, but that report was drawn up by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he was Shadow Minister in charge of shipbuilding. To whom was it given? It was given to the Shadow Cabinet. What was the result? He was made a Minister. What Department was he put into—the Department responsible for shipbuilding. We are told to forget about it. Yet every single thing that has happened has followed the plan that was laid down within that report, and the hiatus between November and February in relation to credits was because of certain difficulties in hiving off Yarrow.
The right hon. Gentleman said, either in his statement or in answer to a supplementary question, that the advisory group had the advantage of the assistance of experts in shipbuilding. Who were they? Were they the people whom the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury saw? Was it Yarrow? Was it Scott and Lithgow? It could not have been those who were connected with the Shipbuilding Industry Board, the men whose judgment and advice to the Government has been condemned today—but not at the time. It is not surprising, if the people who were advising the group were the people who advised the hon. Gentleman, that we should get the same kind of report.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about order books. How does he expect any company in a difficult time to build up orders when he is holding up credits? He

1137
knows that credits to the value of £53 million were held up from late October until the end of February—indeed, I think it was March before they were released.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the advice issued to every Member of Parliament who is interested in shipbuilding, from the Information Office of the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association, the National Association of Marine Enginebuilders, the British Ship Research Association and British Shipbuilding Exports? This document refers to the drop in orders and says of the lower tonnage being ordered:
"This change in the situation compared with a year ago is the result of the uncertainties over credit in the earlier part of the year, coupled with the effect of the removal of investment grants towards the end of 1970."
Who was responsible for withdrawing investment grants?—the right hon. Gentleman before the study was even set up. The document goes on to say:
"… forecasts suggest that in the longer term there will be an overall growth in tonnage requirements … the world's shipping capacity is being expanded."
The suggestion is that our shipbuilding capacity should be looked after. This fits in with what was said by the hon. Member for Cathcart. The document goes on to say:
"Industry must also be able to rely upon the active support of the Government, for while shipbuilders would prefer to operate freely, it is unrealistic to think that any country without official help can compete with those nations where State aid in various forms is available."
The right hon. Gentleman, far from helping U.C.S., went out of his way to kill it. He suggests that he has been unfairly attacked for seeming to be cold and callous, but his recent statement on television that he wanted to get a down-to-earth solution was no more helpful. Down-to-earth? Six feet down! That is what it means for the Clyde. Anyone producing a report like this can expect sense, but the right hon. Gentleman expected more than that; he expected a vote of thanks for it.
I lost my temper, and I have not yet regained it because my sense of anger and outrage has not been allayed by anything said by the right hon. Gentleman today. He seemed to think that we should take this calmly. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-
1138
Arthur) said that we whipped up the feelings of the men on the Clyde. He should ask the hon. Member for Cathcart, who knows something about the people of Glasgow. They did not require their feelings to be whipped up; they required to be restrained.
Mrs. Mac Arthur: Who restrained them?
Mrs. Ross: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland are going to the Clyde tomorrow. I am perfectly sure that they will not need a bodyguard, but I wish they had gone before they made this decision.
The report says that the four gentlemen took into account the social considerations. My hon. Friends the Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney), Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) put the social considerations fairly clearly, and I know a little about them. I spoke angrily about Clydebank, but the right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the people who died during the war in Clydebank died for John Brown's. The enemy was not aiming at people, but at John Brown's, and the one place that was not touched was John Brown's, but the Government are going to kill it—a firm which is the pride of this country. How we gloried when the QE2 was launched and fitted out and finally sailed. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about modernisation. I wonder how much modernisation can be done in a yard when one is building a ship of that size and fitting it out. Has he any appreciation of the difficulties involved in achieving modernisation? The one place where modernisation was embarked upon was in that part which was hived off.
The right hon. Gentleman has no appreciation at all of the feelings of the people and the quality of the men concerned in regard to the view in February that viability could be achieved in U.C.S. Has he paid any attention to the improvements that took place in steel throughput, organisation and efficiency?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the shipyards in Britain, not just those in the Clyde, had been ridden with demarcation disputes, not in one year only. I recently read the history of

1139
Glasgow and discovered that even in 1642 there were demarcation fights. The fact that all this has been reduced within this yard to an extent that is envied elsewhere is a demonstration that something was being achieved. All this is being thrown away.
I hope the Government will still change their mind. Scotland has never had a worse Government.
Mrs. Galbraith: Come off it.
Mrs. Ross: The hon. Member for Hillhead must know that of over 30 M.P.s in the Greater Glasgow area only two are Tories—and he is one of them. The other hon. Member for that area, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, spoke much more sincerely today because he is closer to the kind of people who work in the yards. They got no support from the Scottish people at election time. But that does not mean to say that the Government ought to write off those people. If anything, they should combine their efforts to improve the situation.
They know that 134,000 people were unemployed in Scotland in July and that in August the figure will be nearly 140,000. Some of the children who left school at the beginning of July and who have been on holiday will in August register for employment. Thus the figure will rise, as it did last year.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: Why does not someone wake up Ted?
Mr. Ross: It is too late for him to wake up. The Government are playing ducks and drakes with the Scottish economy—they are lame ducks and weekend Drakes. But there is still time for them to change their mind, and I sincerely hope that they will.
There is far too much at stake; the whole spirit and economy of Scotland is in the balance. We do not want to see Scotland turned again into a reservoir—a pool of labour for the Midlands, London and the South-East. We do not want to see lovely areas in the north of Scotland a playground only for the absentee rich. That is not the future we see for Scotland.
If the Government want a better tomorrow for Scotland, let them start on this path tomorrow when they go up
1140
there. Let them tear up this report and let them save U.C.S. Let them go forward with a reconstruction that makes sense and with a confidence in the potential of that unequalled and unrivalled work force that will be for the benefit of Scotland and for the country as a whole. If they do not do this, they will be labelled—and that label will not be torn off easily—as betrayers of the people of Scotland.
6.14 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Many of the speeches in today's debate have reflected a sombre and worrying situation on Clyde-side, which has been causing great concern to me personally and to the Government. For Scotland, and for the west of Scotland in particular, this sudden liquidation, its possible consequences and the debates upon it are matters of the greatest gravity.
The problems are painfully serious in human terms, because men's livelihoods are directly affected. In any realistic examination of U.C.S., in the light of the Report of the Advisory Group, it is clear that jobs are likely to be lost or changed in numbers which will create anxiety and difficulty for many families. I am acutely conscious of the effects of a reduction in jobs upon the men who may be affected and their families. It is an additional misfortune that this liquidation should have happened at a time when unemployment rates are so high in the Glasgow area—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do about it?"]
Since the U.C.S. Board made its statement of imminent liquidation, I have myself seen in Scotland and London many deputations and representatives of workpeople, local authorities and others concerned. I am well aware of the shock, indeed the stunning effect, that the U.C.S. announcement of liquidation and the subsequent finding by the liquidator of debts of £32 million have caused. I feel myself, and share, the bitterness that this situation creates. Many of the men thought their jobs were secure. It is depressing for them now to find that many of the jobs in U.C.S. have been highly insecure since its inception.
My right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Glasgow tomorrow, having been

1141
in touch with the Lord Provost, for discussions in the City Chamber with representatives of all concerned.
For this situation, the previous Government must bear a large share of the responsibility.
Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Campbell: The group of advisers said that U.C.S. was a totally mistaken initial structure and criticised management from the beginning. Upper Clyde Shipbuilders was set up at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), and few will disagree with the four advisers that it was ill-conceived.
Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman voted for it.
Mr. Campbell: We in Scotland are now having to cope with the results of this failure and to try to mitigate its social effects. In this situation, we have not only to try to achieve the best possible continuing shipbuilding organisation on the Upper Clyde but also to grapple with the problems of redundancies, reducing as far as possible the number out of work at any given time.
It is clear that about 1,000 jobs in shipbuilding will become progressively available elsewhere on the Clyde from now on, and that there are prospects of more, depending on how the liquidator is able to dispose of yards.
At the time the U.C.S. announced that it had to go into liquidation the Government appointed the group of four advisers to study urgently the situation and make recommendations. There has been criticism that the Report is only three pages long, but to be of use such recommendations had to be made immediately because they had to be well within the limited period in which, in Scotland, a provisional liquidation can last. The Government had guaranteed the wages necessary for that period.
The Advisory Group clearly has not spared itself in the work it has carried out. It was able by last week to produce a Report with clear findings and recommendations. Besides Lord Robens, the group contains leading and distinguished Scots experienced in industry and finance.
1142
Clearly, these men were and are essentially concerned to recommend what is in the best interests of Scotland and Clyde-side. When considering their Report the House should have in mind that it has been made by men who fervently wish to see Clydeside and Scotland prosper. Nothing would have been better news to me or to the Government than if this Group had recommended the full continuance in work of the total force. This would have been universally welcomed. What it has done is to set out clearly the facts as it found them and to propose the only workable future reconstruction which it considers feasible, and it depends upon certain conditions.
Would those on the Opposition Front Bench if they had been in government have repudiated the findings of this Group of advisers and its recommendations? [Interruption] It has not been stated categorically in the debate, but I take it from that that they would have set aside this important advice.
Those concerned with Scotland must face up to the situation described by the Group. Through the centuries Scots in adversity have been prepared to face the facts, however unpalatable, rather than surround themselves with more palatable make-believe.
Having received this Report, it would have been deceiving ourselves and deceiving Scotland to have rejected it. It has been suggested that the Report is short and does not argue a long case supported by figures. However, in the time required the Group has produced findings and recommendations which are both lucid and unequivocal. As for figures, the liquidator has made that position clear. Had the Report of the Group gone into all the figures at length, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would have been the first to say that it was simply an accountants' document.
The Advisory Group has recommended a scheme under which shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde can confidently be continued. It is subject to certain important conditions, but I see no reason why it should not be fulfilled. In Scotland, we must surely concentrate on doing all we can to enable that scheme to get started to work. It would be folly, simply because of disappointment over the facts and the findings of the four advisers, if we were to nullify the prospect of 2,500

1143
firm jobs at Govan and Linthouse with the possibility of future expansion.
Mr. Benn: What we are asking for are the working documents which lie behind the Report. Will the Secretary of State publish the working documents so that the House can judge the cost of alternative policies which were before the Cabinet when it reached its decision?
Mr. Campbell: The Group of advisers was asked to produce a Report urgently in the time before the end of the provisional liquidation. Hon. Members opposite challenged us only last Tuesday to publish the Report, and this we have done.
All who, like me, want to see successful shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde must encourage the co-operation and effort required by us in Scotland to follow up and help the Govan-Linthouse project.
Interest has also been shown by possible purchasers in the Scotstoun and Clydebank yards during the period of provisional liquidation. The prospect of work being continued at one or both with continuing employment must not be overlooked or prejudiced by unthinking reaction. This is a matter for the liquidator. He has the task of disposal. However, the future of these assets should not be ignored in terms of possible additional employment.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), the Government do not have closed minds to possible assistance for successor projects.
In the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill last Tuesday night, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), as my right hon. Friend reminded him, said that he was impressed by the quality of the four advisers. He went on to say this:
"We ought to see that report and what advice is offered to the Government and balance against that the decision that the Government eventually take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 381–2.]
That is what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman made those remarks late on Tuesday night. Within 48 hours he changed his mind. What caused him to do that?
In the debate last Tuesday the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East
1144
made a comment about employers on the Lower Clyde which caused the Scott Lithgow shipbuilding group to make an immediate comment to repudiate his suggestion. The Glasgow Herald of Thursday, 29th July, contained this report:
"The Scott Lithgow shipbuilding group on the lower reaches of the Clyde reacted sharply last night to suggestions in the House of Commons that they would be happy to see more unemployment on the Upper Clyde. The claim, by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Labour M.P. for South-East Bristol, that the lower reaches management would like to see higher unemployment on the Upper Clyde to improve lower reaches recruiting was dismissed as 'ridiculous'.
' His comments are quite unjustified by the facts', a group official said."
The right hon. Gentleman has caused quite enough damage to us in Scotland by his mistakes and bad judgment when he was a Minister. On top of the follies which he committed on the Upper Clyde he has now added a suggestion which I can only describe as diabolical.
Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Campbell: No, in view of the time. The shipbuilders on the Lower Clyde—
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order because, when the report in the Glasgow Herald was brought to my attention and I—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] On a point of order. This relates to a misprint of a single word in HANSARD which I dealt with fully in Scotland and which will be corrected in the bound volume of HANSARD.
Mr. Campbell Mr. Campbell rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Campbell: I am referring to column 353 of the HANSARD issued on Wednesday, 28th July, 1971. If it is incorrect then I withdraw until I see the correct version. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have withdrawn until I see the correct version.
In the wider context of the situation and the difficulties in West Central Scotland, this area on Clydeside has been singled out for very special help. Since February it has been made a special development area—[Laughter.]. This is not a laughing matter. Already, in the

1145
five months since it has been so designated, although that is only a short period, the number of jobs coming in through the I.D.C. application is more than four times greater than in the equivalent period in the previous year—
Mr. Ross: How many jobs have been lost?
Mr. Campbell: —a sign that this is already working.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is reported in the Press as having made statements which seemed to favour the setting up of communes. Is it his party's industrial policy that men should take over businesses and try to run them? Does he think that this will help British industry in the highly com-
petitive world of today? Or is he simply acting as a demagogue vainly trying to retrieve some plausibility, having himself been responsible for setting up U.C.S., the company whose failure is causing so much anguish in Scotland today? We understand that the Leader of the Opposition is going—[Interruption.]—to Glasgow on Wednesday. Will he—
Mr. Robert Mellish Mr. Robert Mellish (Bermondsey) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 280.

Division No. 449.]

AYES

[16.30 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Huckfield, Leslie

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Allen, Scholefiled

Delargy, H. J.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Ashley, Jack

Dempsey, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ashton, Joe

Doig, Peter

Hunter, Adam

Atkinson, Norman

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

lrvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (EdgeHill)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Janner, Greville

Barnes, Michael

Driberg, Tom

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Duffy, A. E. P.

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

Barnett, Joel

Dunnett, Jack

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Beaney, Alan

Eadie, Alex

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Edelman, Maurice

John, Brynmor

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

Bishop, E. S.

Ellis, Tom

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

English, Michael

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Evans, Fred

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Faulds, Andrew

Booth, Albert

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Artnur

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

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

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Bradley, Tom

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

Foley, Maurice

Kaufman, Gerald

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

Foot, Michael

Kelley, Richard

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Ford, Ben

Kerr, Russell

Buchan, Norman

Forrester, John

Kinnock, Neil

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

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lambie, David

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Galpern, Sir Meyer

Latham, Arthur

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Garrett, W. E.

Lawson, George

Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, w.)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Leadbitter, Ted

Cant, R. B.

Ginsburg, David

Lee, Rt. Hn. Fredrick

Carmichael, Neil

Golding, John

Leonard, Dick

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Gourlay, Harry

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Coleman, Donald

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Lipton, Marcus

Conlan, Bernard

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Loughlin, Charles

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Hamling, William

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Crawshaw, Richard

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hardy, Peter

McBride, Neil

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Harper, Joseph

McCartney, Hugh

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Dalyell, Tam

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Mackie, John

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hattersley, Roy

Maclennan, Robert

Davidson, Arthur

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelty)

Heffer, Eric S.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hooson, Emlyn

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

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Horam, John

Marks, Kenneth

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Marquand, David

Davies, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Marsden, F.

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Pendry, Tom

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Pentland, Norman

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Mayhew, Christopher

Perry, Ernest G.

Strang, Gavin

Meacher, Michael

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Prescott, John

Taverne, Dick

Mendelson, John

Price., J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Millan, Bruce

Probert, Arthur

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Miller, Dr. M. s.

Rankin, John

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

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Molloy, William

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Tinn, James

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Tomney, Frank

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Richard, Ivor

Torney, Tom

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Tuck, Raphael

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Urwin, T. W.

Moyle, Roland

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Varley, Eric G.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Roper, John

Wainwright, Edwin

Murray, Ronald King

Rose, Paul B.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Ogden, Eric

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Wallace, George

O'Halloran, Michael

Sandelson, Neville

Watkins, David

O'Malley, Brian

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Weitzman, David

Oram, Bert

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Orme, Stanley

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Whitehead, Phillip

Oswald. Thomas

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Silverman, Julius

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Padley, Walter

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Paget, R. T.

Small, William

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Palmer, Arthur

Spearing, Nigel

Woof, Robert

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Spriggs, Leslie

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Stallard, A. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Steel, David

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Mr. James Hamilton.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Churchill, W. S.

Goodhart, Philip

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Goodhew, Victor

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gorst, John

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Clegg, Walter

Gower, Raymond

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Cockeram, Eric

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Atkins, Humphrey

Cooke, Robert

Cray, Hamish

Awdry, Daniel

Coombs, Derek

Green, Alan

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Grieve, Percy

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Cormack, Patrick

Grylls, Michael

Balniel, Lord

Costain, A. P.

Gummer, Selwyn

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Critchley, Julian

Gurden, Harold

Batsford, Brian

Crouch, David

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Curran, Charles

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Bell, Ronald

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Benyon, W.

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

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Dean, Paul

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Biffen, John

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Biggs-Davison, John

Dixon, Piers

Haselhurst, Alan

Blaker, Peter

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hastings, Stephen

Havers, Michael

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Drayson, G. B.

Hawkins, Paul

Body, Richard

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hay, John

Boscawen, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Hayhoe, Barney

Bossom, Sir Clive

Eden, Sir John

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Bowden, Andrew

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hicks, Robert

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Higgins, Terence L.

Braine, Bernard

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

Hiley, Joseph

Bray, Ronald

Emery, Peter

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

Brewis, John

Farr, John

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fell, Anthony

Holt, Miss Mary

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Hordern, Peter

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fidler, Michael

Hornby, Richard

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Bryan, Paul

Fookes, Miss Janet

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

Fortescue, Tim

Howell, David (Guildford)

Buck, Antony

Foster, Sir John

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Fowler, Norman

Hunt, John

Burden, F. A.

Fox, Marcus

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

James, David

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

Fry, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Carlisle, Mark

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Gardner, Edward

Jopling, Michael

Cary, Sir Robert

Gibson-Watt, David

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Channon, Paul

Gilmour. Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Kershaw, Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Kilfedder, James

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Kimball, Marcus

Chichester-Clark, R.

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

1148

1149

Kinsey, J. R.

Nott, John

Sproat, lain

Kirk, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Stanbrook, Ivor

Knox, David

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Lambton, Antony

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Lane, David

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Stokes, John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Le Marchant, Spencer

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, w.)

Sutcliffe, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Peel, John

Tapsell, Peter

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

Percival, Ian

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Longden, Gilbert

Pink, R. Bonner

Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcarl)

Loveridge, John

Pounder, Ration

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Luce, R. N.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tebbit, Norman

MacArthur, Ian

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

Temple, John M.

McCrindle, R. A.

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

McLaren, Martin

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Tilney, John

McMaster, Stanley

Raison, Timothy

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Trew, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Redmond, Robert

Tugendhat, Christopher

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Maddan, Martin

Rees, Peter (Dover)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Madel, David

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Maginnis, John E.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Vickers, Dame Joan

Marten, Neil

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Waddington, David

Mather, Carol

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Maude, Angus

Ridsdale, Julian

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Mawby, Ray

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Wall, Patrick

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Walters, Dennis

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Rost, Peter

Ward, Dame Irene

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

Royle, Anthony

Weatherill, Bernard

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Moate, Roger

St. John-Stevas, Norman

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Molyneaux, James

Scott, Nicholas

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Money, Ernle

Scott-Hopkins, James

Wiggin, Jerry

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Sharples, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Monro, Hector

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

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Montgomery, Fergus

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Simeons, Charles

Woodnutt, Mark

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Sinclair, Sir George

Worsley, Marcus

Mudd, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Murton, Oscar

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

Neave, Airey

Soref, Harold

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Speed, Keith

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Normanton, Tom

Spence, John

Mr. Jasper More.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords Amendments considered.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    New Clause "B"

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO APPROVED CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 14, line 24, at the end insert new Clause "B":
      "B.—(1) For the purposes of section 16(5)(a) of this Act a worker, notwithstanding that he has not expressly refused to become a member of a trade union with which an approved closed shop agreement was made, shall be treated as having so refused if he does not duly apply for membership of that trade union before the end of the relevant period or if, having applied for such membership, he withdraws that application.
      (2) For the purposes of section 16(5) of this Act a worker shall be treated as having been excluded from being a member of a trade union if (but only if)—

      (a) his application for membership of the trade union has been rejected, or he has been expelled from membership of the trade union, and

      (b) the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled.

      (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(b) of this section are that—

      (a) under the rules of the trade union the worker has a right of appeal against his rejection or expulsion, and

      (b) his appeal has been heard and dismissed or has been withdrawn or the time for appealing has expired without his having exercised that right.

      (4) Subject to the next following subsection, in this section "the relevant period" in the case of an approved closed shop agreement—

      (a) in relation to a person who, on the date on which the agreement takes effect, is a worker to whom the agreement applies, means the period of three months from that date, and

      (b) in relation to any other person, means the period of one month from the date on which he begins to be employed as a worker to whom the agreement applies.

      (5) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that, in so far as any approved closed shop agreement relates to workers engaged, or seeking to be engaged, in work of a description specified
      1152
      in the order, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect as if, for the references to three months and one month, there were substituted references to such shorter periods as are specified in the order."
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29th July] on consideration of Lords Amendments, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Question again proposed.
      6.40 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: The House will recall that we were discussing Lords Amendment No. 41, which has two cardinal features. One was the period which an employee, in the case of an approved closed shop, would have before he was compelled to join the union. The man who had been an employee at the time that the approved closed shop was agreed to would have three months grace and the new employee would have one month. The Solicitor-General will recall that I was deploying the argument that there were certain trades and industries where this would be difficult of application. I was referring to the fishing industry to illustrate the point.
      The new Clause also allows the Secretary of State, where he deems it advisable, to reduce the period in the two cases to which I have referred.
      I was trying to demonstrate that, concerning the fishing industry—I shall deal with another industry late—the Secretary of State, recognising that the periods of grace were far too long, would have to come to the House with orders which, even so, might have to be varied from time to time. A deep sea vessel could, for example, be out for three weeks. I do not want to go over the argument I deployed on Thursday. No doubt the Solicitor-General listened to it. He would be a bit of a masochist if he also read it. However, I think that he will recall the point that I was making.
      If the Secretary of State deemed it advisable to come to the House to seek approval to reduce the period of grace concerning the deep sea section of the industry—that is, if we can discriminate, because we might have a situation where a particular firm to which the approved closed shop may apply operates both deep sea and middle water vessels—we

      1153
      still have the problem of the middle-water vessels. We also have the problem of the variation in the period which a vessel may be at sea, because of the climatic conditions. The elements themselves may cause a variation in the period that a vessel may be at sea. We may have a similar situation with middle water vessels which spend periods of about a week at sea. Therefore, in practice, what has been described as a concession does not apply to the fishing industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is associated with the building industry. He knows a little more about that industry than I do, but I was surprised that he did not introduce into his speech the farcical nature of describing this as a concession to the building industry. Anyone who knows the building industry realises that, even with the major firms, there is a high degree of turnover of labour.
      I do not wish to detain the House long. I think that the two industries to which I have referred clearly demonstrate that this so-called concession will not apply in the way that the Solicitor-General seems to think. It is not a concession at all. It is a concession on paper, but it will not be a concession in application.
      6.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The concept of shortening the period from three months for a worker already employed and from one month for an incoming worker is in line with the concept already approved by the House in the context of the agency shop. The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when dealing with this point, said that the Secretary of State would give close consideration, in the context of any particular application, to the kind of point which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has put forward.
      Originally, the corresponding provision dealing with the agency shop was stated to apply only to the construction industry. The special selection of that industry was in itself a recognition of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), to which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has now returned. I vouchsafe the knowledge that, by his standards, I am a masochist because I have read as well as heard what he said last Thursday.
      1154
      The points raised by the hon. Gentleman on other industries, including the fishing industry and the shipping industry generally, were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when we considered the agency shop. It is for that reason that, concerning any industry, the powers are made available to the Secretary of State to shorten the period of grace to the extent which would be judged necessary in the light of considerations urged upon him.
      Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to whom I referred on Thursday, was dealing specifically with the shipping industry. I am dealing with the fishing industry, which is a section of the shipping industry, where there are particular technical problems in applying a shorter period. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself specifically to the shipping industry in this context?
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that there are particular technical problems in the fishing industry. I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would acknowledge the particularity of that industry as part of the shipping industry. Certainly many of the problems are common to all industries. Plainly, they would have to be considered by the Secretary of State in the light of submissions made to him concerning an order under subsection (5). The Clause enables the Secretary of State to make an order curtailing either period of grace relating to work of a description specified in the order. So it would be open to him to consider each description of work and each industry or each section of industry according to its needs as established to him by the applicants. On that basis I commend the new Clause and invite the House to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: I have been asked on behalf of the Opposition to say that we find the explanation of the Solicitor-General, at the beginning and certainly now at the end, completely unconvincing. There is no doubt that the new Clause is a concession not to trade unions but to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and other hon. Members on his side of the House who felt

      1155
      that the agency shop would bite too hard and too quickly upon non-unionists.
      The Solicitor-General has dealt with the question of people applying for jobs but he would, I think, agree that subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the new Clause deals also with the expulsion of a member from a trade union. The normal machinery of appeal by a member takes about 12 months to operate in most unions; that is the length of time taken by the democratic appeal machinery. The situation could arise that a non-unionist was in a shop throughout the whole of that time.
      The three months' provision would mean that a person could not be refused employment and that having started it if he were to give an indication that he would join a union, a period of three months would elapse. There could be a situation within a shop, in which an agency shop was supposed both to be covering trade unionists and excluding the free rider, that people who were not trade unionists were working for a considerable time. That was the point made to the House by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who feared that people might be forced to join a union. The Clause gives those people the maximum opportunity to try to evade their responsibilities.
      The Solicitor-General would have the right to come to the House with an order but as my hon. Friends have said, in certain industries in which there is an itinerant labour force or a labour force of the kind employed in shipping, fishing or the construction industry, before the order could operate people could come in and work for a short time, leave and never
      come within the scope or the so-called agency shop.
      This is just another indication that the Government, having introduced the agency shop, have been under pressure from their back-benchers and, therefore, have tried to ease the situation. As we have said on many occasions, it will not be difficult for workers, who will get guidance from all kinds of sources, to constitute a continual destructive irritant in this situation. That will be the type of worker who will lead to industrial action under the Bill, because the workers will say, "In these circumstances, the employer has the right to dismiss this person, but as soon as we ask for his dismissal we are told that there are all sorts of loopholes which allow a person to make false application to join a union." Who will decide the validity of the applications? Who will keep the works manager continuously chasing the worker, as though he does not have enough problems already?
      Workers within the industry will say, "We are not having this. We have always had 100 per cent. trade unionism or this section of our factory trade union-organised, and it will remain so." By these little exclusions and delaying tactics, the Solicitor-General will bring upon himself and the Government all sorts of industrial problems and difficulties which I do not think he foresees. For these reasons, we ask for a vote on the new Clause.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 239.

      Division No. 450.]

      AYES

      [6.56 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Blaker, Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Body, Richard

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Amery, Bt. Hn. Julian

      Boscawen, Robert

      Channon, Paul

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Chapman, Sydney

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Bowden, Andrew

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Awdry, Daniel

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Baker, Kenneth (St Marylebone)

      Braine, Bernard

      Churchill, W. S.

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Bray, Ronald

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Balniel, Lord

      Brewis, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Cockeram, Eric

      Batsford, Brian

      Brocklebank- Fowler, Christopher

      Cooke, Robert

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Coombs, Derek

      Bell, Ronald

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Bryan, Paul

      Cormack, Patrick

      Benyon, W,

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

      Costain, A. P.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Critchley, Julian

      Biffen, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Crouch, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Curran, Charles

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Jessel, Toby

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Redmond, Robert

      Dean, Paul

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Deedes, Bt. Hn. W. F.

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      du Cann, Bt. Hn. Edward

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Eden, Sir John

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kirk, Peter

      Rost, Peter

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

      Kitson, Timothy

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Emery, Peter

      Knox, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lambton, Antony

      Scott, Nicholas

      Farr, John

      Lane, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fell, Anthony

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sharples, Richard

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Legg-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

      Fidler, Michael

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Simeons, Charles

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Longden, Gilbert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fortescue, Tim

      Loveridge, John

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mingtot

      Foster, Sir John

      Luce, R. N.

      Soref, Harold

      Fowler, Norman

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Speed, Keith

      Fox, Marcus

      MacArthur, Ian

      Spence, John

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

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sproat, lain

      Fry, Peter

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      McMaster, Stanley

      Steel, David

      Gardner, Edward

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Stokes, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Madel, David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Maginnis, John E.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mather, Carol

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

      Gorst, John

      Maude. Angus

      Taylor, Prank (Moss Side)

      Gower, Raymond

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Temple, John M.

      Green, Alan

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Grieve, Percy

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

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Grimond, Bt. Hn. J.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Tilney, John

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Molyneaux, James

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Gurden, Harold

      Money, Ernle

      Trew, Peter

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Waddington, David

      Mudd, David

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Murton, Oscar

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neave, Airey

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Havers, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Wall, Patrick

      Hay, John

      Nott, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Onslow, Cranley

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Hicks, Robert

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

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

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Peel, John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hornby, Richard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Pounder, Rafton

      Worsley, Marcus

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hunt, John

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Mr. Paul Hawkins.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Ashley, Jack

      Barnes, Michael

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Ashton, Joe

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Atkinson, Norman

      Barnett, Joel

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Beaney, Alan

      1158

      1159

      Bern, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Moyle, Roland

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hamling, William

      Murray, Ronald King

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harman, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Ogden, Eric

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Harper, Joseph

      O'Malley, Brian

      Booth, Albert

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Oram, Bert

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Orme, Stanley

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Oswald, Thomas

      Bradley, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

      Horam, John

      Padley, Walter

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Parry Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pentland, Norman

      Cant, R. B.

      Hunter, Adam

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Janner, Greville

      Prescott, John

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

      Probert, Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rankin, John

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      John, Brynmor

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Dalyell, Tam

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

      Roper, John

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, T. Alec (Rnondda, W.)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kerr, Russell

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      kinnock, Neil

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lambie, David

      Silverman, Julius

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Latham, Arthur

      Skinner, Dennis

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lawson, George

      Small, William

      Delargy, H. J.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dempsey, James

      Leonard, Dick

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Driberg, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Duffy, A, E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Strang, Gavin

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Taverne, Dick

      Eadie, Alex

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

      Edelman, Maurice

      McBride, Neil

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McGuire, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tomney, Frank

      English, Michael

      Mackie, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Evans, Fred

      Maclennan, Robert

      Urwin, T. W.

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wainwright, Edwin

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

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

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wallace, George

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marquand, David

      Watkins, David

      Foley, Maurice

      Marsden, F.

      Weitzman, David

      Foot, Michael

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Ford, Ben

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Forrester, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Woof, Robert

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Molloy, William

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Mr. John Golding.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Clause 18

      WRITTEN PARTICULARS OF TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 15, line 16, after "agreement" insert:
      "or an approved closed shop agreement".
      7.0 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment is consequential to the inclusion in the Bill of the provisions in Clause 16 and Schedule I for approved closed shop agreements, which were added on Report in this House.
      The rights conferred on employees under Clause 5 in respect of membership or non-membership of trade unions and taking part in trade union activities will apply to all contracts of employment. It is important that employees should be properly informed about them, and this can be most appropriately done through the written statement of the terms of their employment which employers are required to give to their employees under Section 4(1) of the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963. Clause 18(2)(a) therefore requires employers to include in that written statement a note indicating employees' rights under Clause 5 and, if an agency shop agreement applies to him, how it will affect those rights.
      Now that the principle of the approved closed shop agreement has been incorporated in the Bill it becomes equally important that the note to be given to employees under this provision should indicate the effect of their rights under Clause 5 and any approved closed shop agreement that applies to them. We feel it necessary that this should be included; in fact it is the only reason for the Amendment.
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Member refers to ''rights under Clause 5". I take it that he is referring to Clause 5(1)(a) and (b).
      Mr. Smith: Yes, I am. As I was saying, the only reason why we are moving the Amendment is to regularise the situation by mentioning an approved closed shop agreement in the Clause.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: It is an interesting commentary on the way
      1162
      the Government have handled the Bill that this is the first opportunity which this House has had of discussing those parts of the Bill which deal with the Contracts of Employment Act and the amendments to it, and so minor has our rôle been in the discussions on the Bill that even now we are prevented from considering this important part of it except in the narrow context of what has been decided in the other place. That is why we are now dealing with what may seem to be a small drafting point. I say "may seem to be" because those of us who have studied all the parts of the Bill, even though we have not been allowed by the Government to discuss them, know that the Under-Secretary of State was correct in a sense wider than mere drafting when he said that this Amendment is consequential on Clause 16, on the agency shop Clauses and, above all, on Clause 5.
      We intend to vote against the Amendment because its significance goes far wider than mere drafting. The insertion of these words at this point in the Bill is a further mutilation of the right of an employee to belong to a trade union, a right which, in our opinion, ought to be embodied simply and expressly in his contract of employment. In discussing the Amendment, we are again highlighting the vast difference between the Secretary of State's approach to industrial relations and that of the Labour Government and my own Bill.
      In preparing my White Paper and introducing my Industrial Relations Bill to the House just before the election, I always intended that the basic right to belong to a trade union should figure as an express provision in every worker's contract of employment. I went further: I intended that the written statement to which each employee is entitled under the Contracts of Employment Act should become a recruiting poster for trade unionism. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that trade unionism is a good thing, that it is an expression of industrial democracy—
      Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke) rose—
      Mrs. Castle: I have not mentioned the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his right hon. Friend is perfectly capable of looking after himself.
      Mr. Mitchell: How can the right hon. Lady assert that my right hon. Friend is

      1163
      opposed to trade unionism when the first part of the Bill specifically spells out that this is one of its objectives?
      Mrs. Castle: I was about to prove my statement. The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself. I think I am right in saying that, during the Committee stage on earlier parts of the Bill, he himself joined a chorus from his side saying that the Bill as then worded contained a distinct discouragement to join a union, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman had to modify his initial presentation in certain respects. I was about to substantiate the point I was making, in the context of the present Amendment, inhibited though we are—I say it again—by the narrowness of the scope within which we have to argue.
      Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I wanted the worker's little bit of paper which by law he must have after a certain period to be an active encouragement to him to join a union. In keeping with the propositions of the Donovan Commission, I believed it to be a good thing to suggest to workers, by every means in our power, that they ought to belong to a trade union.
      7.15 p.m.
      Therefore, in the Bill which I introduced just before the election, I set out in Clause 57 that the right of employees to belong to an independent trade union
      "shall be a term of the contract of employment of every employee"
      and in Clause 61 I went on to express that in these terms:
      "In section 4 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 (written particulars of terms of employment) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3):—
      'In addition to any particulars required by the foregoing provisions of this section to be included or referred to in it, the statement shall include the following words:—
      "The right of an employee to belong to an independent trade union … must not be obstructed by his employer; and an employee who is prevented or deterred from, or penalised for, belonging to an independent trade union, or is required or compelled to belong to a non-independent trade union or penalised for not belonging to it, may have a right to compensation from his employer".'".
      That was to be on the written piece of paper which I thought the employee should have. What do we find in the present Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has gone through the workers'
      1164
      rights provisions of my Bill and has parodied and mutilated them. In Section 5 I spelled out the right—
      The Solicitor-General: If the right hon. Lady is accusing my right hon. Friend of parodying and mutilating the workers' rights provisions of her Bill, would it not be fair to add the sentence in the notice which she omitted to read?—
      "An employer may, however, in some cases restrict an employee's choice as between two or more independent trade unions which are available to him".
      It was an important part of the balance of her proposals that machinery was being established to enable selection of unions to be made. It is important that the whole notice should be read to the House.
      Mrs. Castle: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that. The only reason I did not was that it would have taken me into an elaborate separate argument, but I am perfectly happy to pursue it. Those words were put in in order to pinpoint the entitlement to the 100 per cent. union shop. If an employer has a union shop agreement with a particular union or unions, then, in order to enable that 100 per cent. union shop agreement to continue, one has to qualify the right to belong to an independent trade union by the words which the Solicitor-General has just read out.
      But the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General do not believe in the 100 per cent. union shop. They have made it clear in their version of the little bit of paper. They make clear that the right to belong to the trade union is paralleled by the right not to belong to a trade union. The little bit of paper will make clear that there is to be no right to a 100 per cent. union shop. Instead, as the subsection shows, we are to have written into the bit of paper the provisions for an agency shop agreement. Equally, by this Amendment it is to be made clear in the little bit of paper that there is no right to a closed shop. [Interruption.] There is no right for a union so to organise and pressurise that it can have its closed shop, and the approved closed shop agreement, limited as it is, can be introduced only with the agreement of the employer. There must be a joint

      1165
      application by the employer and the union.
      Therefore, in the little bit of paper all those qualifications of trade union rights are now to be written in. The Amendment is to write into the contract of employment one more of the Government's restrictions on the simple trade union rights which trade unions thought they had won by organising and struggling over the years, and which we on this side think the law should underpin and no! mutilate in this way.
      Therefore, we draw the attention of the House to the vast change the Bill introduces compared with my proposals. The statement is no longer to be a recruitment poster for trade unionism but on the contrary is to be one in which every employee is to be warned that this Government have decided what are the limits of trade union rights and that they intend to enforce them through their new machinery of unfair industrial practices. We shall oppose the Amendment.
      Mr. Orme: It is evident that the Government are feeling so anxious that if they think that they have left a loophole anywhere they quickly take action to close the door or batten down the hatches. [Interruption.] I am using nautical language because I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have something further to say about how the Amendment will directly affect seamen.
      The Government are not satisfied with having the agency shop mentioned in the contract of employment, but feel that they must underline it by dealing with any concession they may appear to have made. My hon. Friends in the industries affected feel that there has been no real concession. But where it appears that there may be a concession the Government feel that they must write in that the same conditions must apply in an approved closed shop agreement.
      It was very interesting that the Under-Secretary also felt it important to mention Clause 5. When I asked whether he was referring to subsection (1)(a) and (b) he confirmed that he was. In other words, it will be made crystal clear to employees when they receive the contract of employment, whether they work in an agency shop or an approved closed shop, that the non-union clause operates
      1166
      and is cardinal to the Government's policy.
      Since we have begun consideration of Lords Amendments, the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have often reacted violently when we have said that their proposals are anti-trade union, and they have gone out of their way to try to refute our allegations.
      Mr. David Mitchell: Very successfully.
      Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I merely commented that the Government have been very successful in refuting the charge that they are in any way anti-trade union.
      Mr. Orme: If that is so, why have the Government gone to the lengths of inserting the provision in the contracts of employment? Why do they feel it so essential to insert those words?
      Throughout the Bill, whenever we have a reference to trade unions, an agency shop agreement or the right to organise, it is always counter-balanced with the right not to belong to a trade union and not to organise. The Government are more in favour of non-organisation than of organisation. The Minister would not have referred to Clause 5 if he had not intended this to be taken seriously. When the contract of employment is handed to an employee, what is provided in the Amendment will be a cardinal point of that contract.
      Mr. Tom King: I find great difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman. I accept his dislike of Clause 5, but, putting aside the merits of the contents, as we are dealing with an individual's rights and Parliament decides what those rights should be, surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that there is something improper in telling individuals where they stand?
      Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend said that she wanted to have written in fully the right to join a trade union. When we start off on the Government's premises, the exact opposite can be written in if the Government think fit. I am completely opposed to that. The question of trade unions and employers is a matter for them. That is why my hon. Friends and I are so opposed to the Bill,

      1167
      because it starts off by writing in these rights or non-rights, which become part of the legal system, supported by references to all types of unfair industrial practices, the right to go to the courts and so on. That sets us off down a trail to which I am completely opposed. When people are in favour of the sort of thing the Government are in favour of, they start writing it in, and that is why the Bill has become so thick. It has grown like Topsy, because the Government's advisers say "When you come to the contract of employment you should insert these words to safeguard the position". So it goes on. There is no end to the way in which such points can be added with a legal application.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: Has my hon. Friend noticed that whereas the right join a union has set against it the right not to join, the right of organisations of workers to become trade unions does not have a corresponding right not to be trade unions? That is, an organisation of workers has a right to register, but not a right not to do so, because if it does not it is no longer even a trade union.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. and learned Friend, with his legal expertise, has put his finger on a salient point, that the Government do not honestly follow through their own dictum. Where it suits them, they start to bend the rules and put the emphasis where they think it is in the interests of the Bill. That is why we say that the Government are anti-trade union. We are opposed to the way in which they are trying to tighten up everything and do not want to leave any loophole.
      The Clause is meant to be a simple exposition of contracts of employment, spelling out to the worker his basic entitlements with regard to conditions, holidays and so on. That is a normal procedure which has developed quite extensively in recent years in industrial relations. But it is felt now that it is a matter of policy to tell a worker that he has a right not to belong to a trade union It is because of that that my hon. Friends and I will vote against the Amendment.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. David Mitchell: I have been listening with growing astonishment to hon.
      1168
      Members opposite. Indeed. I have had to thumb through the Order Paper to ensure that they were speaking to the same Amendment as appears there. Their speeches appear to have been addressed to some totally different Amendment. The Amendment is consequential upon acceptance of the Opposition's case that in certain circumstances there should be permitted a closed shop. The Government are amending the Bill in that sense.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Our case is not that in certain circumstances there should be a closed shop but that in all circumstances there should be a closed shop.
      Mr. Mitchell: I was saying that the Government have accepted Opposition pressure for a closed shop in certain circumstances. Consequently, it is necessary to amend Clause 18 in a minor way. How the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) can pile his mountain of rhetoric on this small Amendment by the Government, put down in order to meet a case which the Opposition has made, is beyond comprehension.
      Mr. John Prescott: We are concerned particularly with putting into the Contracts of Employment Act a so-called right being proposed by the Government. This is the right, if he so desires, for a worker to be a member of a trade union of his choice, or, if he so desires, not to be a member of a trade union or other organisation of workers, with, of course, certain exceptions.
      It has been my experience with contracts of employment that they are worth very little in that an employer required to give them is not subject to great sanctions if he fails to observe them. I myself have appeared before industrial tribunals on behalf of members of my union, when it has been found that, whilst a contract of employment was given to a person, the fact that it was not observed did not carry a penalty upon the employer. I have been looking through the Contracts of Employment Act to see what sanctions are available against employers who do not observe them. If these rights are so important, perhaps the Government will explain what sanctions there are against an employer who does not embody them in a so-called contract of employment.

      1169
      We are considering an Amendment extending the right of a written contract of employment into an approved closed shop situation. It has been strongly emphasised by hon. Members opposite that the closed shop situation has been introduced in order to deal with certain circumstances—namely, those of the shipping industry and of Equity. Other bodies may be involved, but these are the two instances most quoted in discussion of the approved closed shop and the agency shop. But Section 6(2) of the Act says:
      "The foregoing Sections of this Act shall not apply to—

      (a) a person employed as master of or a seaman on a seagoing British ship having a gross registered tonnage of 80 tons or more, including a person ordinarily employed as a seaman who is employed in or about such a ship in port by the owner or charterer of the ship to do work of a kind ordinarily done by a seaman on such a ship while it is in port …"

      The point here is that the provision exempts seamen from contracts of employment and they are surely, therefore, exempt from this proposal. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain the situation.
      The Solicitor-General: The general attack mounted by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and to some extent by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), has been to the effect that this is another part of our attack on the concept of the closed shop. That is wide of the mark. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) pointed out, this provision will ensure that where a closed shop agreement or agency shop agreement exists, in effect it diminishes the right not to belong—that is, there is an obligation on the worker to belong to a union in an approved closed shop or to belong or to contribute in an agency shop—and his rights should be clearly set out under the Contracts of Employment Act. So far from this being a derogation of trade union rights, we are requiring the employer to make clear to the worker the conditions of employment in that place of work. That is surely a logical step.
      Mrs. Castle: But the hon. and learned Gentleman is missing the logical point. If the Government had not started off by
      1170
      eroding trade union rights in the first place by prohibiting the closed shop, it would not now be necessary to highlight the restriction by saying that now there might be a loophole.
      The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady is entitled to hark back to what has been debated time and time again, but the House and the country know the Government's attitude to the closed shop. All we are providing here is that when a worker is in employment or is going into employment he is entitled to know what his obligations are where a closed shop or an agency shop exists. The right hon. Lady sought to make a retrospective commercial for her own legislation, saying that her Bill would have had the effect of being a recruiting poster for trade unionism, stressing that this would be done by making trade union rights part of the contract of employment. But that was one of the substantial deficiencies in her approach, because if one confines trade union membership rights to contracts of employment one makes those rights available only to a employee—someone already in employment—and they are of no effect at all in preventing an employer from refusing to engage someone on grounds of union membership.
      We go further in two respects. We do so in Clause 5(2)(c) in which we ensure that the right extends to, for example, labour-only sub-contractors and by making a remedy available even to those who have not been engaged. I do not want to make a great virtue out of the semantic difference between operating on contracts of employment and the way in which we have chosen to proceed, save to point out that the foundation for the right hon. Lady's claim is fairly slender.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned the machinery. Of course the Contracts of Employment Act does not apply, as he has indicated, to people in the merchant shipping industry. In fact the notice issued under the Contracts of Employment Act does not have to be issued in any event until 13 weeks after entry into employment. Of course that was the position as provided for in the original 1963 Act.
      That position was not changed in the right hon. Lady's Bill. The right hon. Lady's great charter, her recruiting poster for trade unionism, applied or did not

      1171
      apply to exactly the same extent as this to the industry with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We cannot on either side of the House achieve perfection in the application of these provisions extending and annunciating rights so as to cover every industry at the outset. It is not a valid criticism to say that in these two respects our machinery is not exactly the same as that proposed by the right hon. Lady.
      I return to the somewhat uncharacteristically abstruse point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in which he sought to cast across to the other side of the Chamber, to his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, a rather elaborate and very difficult to follow parallel between a trade union member's rights and a trade union organisation's rights. I admired the way in which the hon. Member for Salford,
      West was just able to pick up the pass without knocking it on. He says that the Government are inconsistent when we provide that the status of registration is not something which should be fundamental to a union in the sense that to achieve the definition of being a trade union one needs to be registered. In that respect we are consistent with the Donovan Commission and "In Place of Strife".
      I fancy that the hon. and learned Member had best return to Murrayfield and handle a ball more adapted to his purpose, although we always welcome his adventurous intrusions into these debates.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 235.

      Division No. 451.]

      AYES

      [7.43 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Cockeram, Eric

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Cooke, Robert

      Gray, Hamish

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Coombs, Derek

      Green, Alan

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Grieve, Percy

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Costain, A. P.

      Grylls, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Critchley, Julian

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Crouch, David

      Gurden, Harold

      Balniel, Lord

      Curran, Charles

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Batsford, Brian

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

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Dean, Paul

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Bell, Ronald

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Benyon, W.

      Drayson, G. B.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hastings, Stephen

      Biffen, John

      Eden, Sir John

      Havers, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Blaker, Peter

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Hay, John

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)

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

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Body, Richard

      Emery, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Boscawen, Robert

      Eyre, Reginald

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Farr, John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fell, Anthony

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

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Braine, Bernard

      Fidler, Michael

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Bray, Ronald

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Brewis, John

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Hordern, Peter

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hornby, Richard

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Fortescue, Tim

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Foster, Sir John

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Fowler, Norman

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bryan, Paul

      Fox, Marcus

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

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

      Hunt, John

      Buck, Antony

      Fry, Peter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Burden, F. A.

      Gardner, Edward

      James, David

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Jesse, Toby

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Jopling, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kilfedder, James

      Churchill, W. S.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Kimball, Marcus

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Gorst, John

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gower, Raymond

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Clegg, Walter

      Kirk, Peter

      Normanton, Tom

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kitson, Timothy

      Nott, John

      Steel, David

      Knox, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Lambton, Antony

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Lane, David

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Stokes, John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Sutcliffe, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfietd, W.)

      Tapsell, Peter

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

      Peel, John

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

      Longden, Gilbert

      Percival, Ian

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Loveridge, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Luce, R. N.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Tebbit, Norman

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

      Temple, John M.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      McCrindle, R. A.

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

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      McMaster, Stanley

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Tilney, John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Raison, Timothy

      Trew, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Maddan, Martin

      Redmond, Robert

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Madel, David

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Maginnis, John E.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Marten, Neil

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Mather, Carol

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Waddington, David

      Maude, Angus

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mawby, Ray

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Wall, Patrick

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Rost, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

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

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Moate, Roger

      Scott, Nicholas

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Molyneaux, James

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Money, Ernle

      Sharples, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Monro, Hector

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Simeons, Charles

      Woodnutt, Mark

      More, Jasper

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Worsley, Marcus

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

      Mudd, David

      Soref, Harold

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Murton, Oscar

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Neave, Airey

      Spence, John

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Sproat, lain

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Allen, Scholefield

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Ashley, Jack

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Foley, Maurice

      Ashton, Joe

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Foot, Michael

      Atkinson, Norman

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

      Ford, Ben

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Forrester, John

      Barnes, Michael

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Freeson, Reginald

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Beaney, Alan

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Ginsburg, David

      Bishop, E. S,

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Golding, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Booth, Albert

      Delargy, H. J.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Dempsey, James

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Bradley, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Driberg, Tom

      Hamling, William

      Buchan, Norman

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hardy, Peter

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Eadie, Alex

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Edelman, Maurice

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Cant, R. B.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ellis, Tom

      Horam, John

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      English, Michael

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Evans, Fred

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      1174

      1175

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Marquand, David

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Marsden, F.

      Roper, John

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Rose, Paul, B.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Sandelson, Neville

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Meacher, Michael

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Hunter, Adam

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Mendelson, John

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Janner, Greville

      Millan, Bruce

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Silverman, Julius

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Skinner, Dermis

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Small, William

      John, Brynmor

      Molloy, William

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Moyle, Roland

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Strang, Gavin

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Summer-skill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, w.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Taverne, Dick

      Kaufman, Gerald

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      Kelley, Richard

      O'Malley, Brian

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Oram, Bert

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

      Lambie, David

      Orme, Stanley

      Tinn, James

      Latham, Arthur

      Oswald, Thomas

      Tomney, Frank

      Lawson, George

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Padley, Walter

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Palmer, Arthur

      Varley, Eric G.

      Leonard, Dick

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Wallace, George

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Watkins, David

      Loughlin, Charles

      Pendry, Tom

      Weitzman, David

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Pentland, Norman

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      McBride, Neil

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      McGuire, Michael

      Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Probert, Arthur

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mackie, John

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Woof, Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

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

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      Marks. Kenneth

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 15, line 18, after "specifying" insert "by description or otherwise".
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Lords Amendments No. 44, in Page 15, line 18, leave out from "whom" to "and" in line 21 and insert:
      "the employee can apply for the purpose of seeking redress of any grievance relating to his employment"
      and No. 45, in page 15, line 24, leave out "subsequent steps in that procedure" and insert:
      "steps consequent upon any such application".
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The sole purpose of these Amendments is clarification. They make it plain, first that when specifying a person to whom the employee
      1176
      can apply when he has a grievance concerning his employment the employer is not required in that note given under subsection (2) of Clause 18 to identify the person by name.
      Secondly, the Amendments make it clear that the note should tell the employee about the further steps in any grievance procedure which is available to him. The wording of subsection (2)(b) and (c) of Clause 18 was clarified in another place when these matters were debated, and as a consequence the Government undertook to look at the matter and to make Amendments.
      Subsections (2)(b) and (c) require employers to include in the written statement of the terms of employment which they are required to give employees under the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, a note specifying a person to whom an employee should apply if he has a grievance relating to his employment. The note should also say how he should apply and explain the subsequent steps

      1177
      in any grievance procedure which is available.
      It was stated in another place that the requirement in subsection (2)(b) to specify a person appeared to require employers to identify someone for this purpose by name and that this could create considerable difficulties, particularly for firms which experience frequent changes in personnel. We all know that this can happen in some industries. It is not our intention to create a stumbling block here by imposing the need to name a person. What we have in mind is that an employer should identify a person in such a way that the employee clearly knows to whom he should apply, when he has a grievance concerning his job. The person might well be identified for example by his title, "section foreman" or "departmental manager". The obligation over identification certainly can be used by the employer, if he wishes, to put a name to an individual, but this should not be obligatory.
      In the circumstances, for the sake of clarity, we believe that it will be more helpful if the employer were able to delineate the job held by the person to whom application should be made rather than the name of that individual. I believe that this helps to clarify the matter, and I hope it will commend itself to hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: I accept that these are basically drafting Amendments for the purpose of clarification. In a sense, they are an acknowledgement of the impossibility of precision in many aspects of industrial relations. At least that small acknowledgement is welcome, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this avoids the need for identification by name and helps with the steps in relation to the grievance procedure. I must enter a caveat that what I find wholly abhorrent about the entire question is that the right to be a free rider or the so-called right to pay to two trade unions by reason of the agency shop is written into the contract of employment with instructions as to the person, now by description or otherwise, to whom application should be made when redress is sought.
      To write into the contract of employment matters which ought to be within
      1178
      the province of purely personal and working relationships with one's fellow employees is something that I find not only unnecessary but a violation of an employee's fundamental rights in a free society. To make thmat objective felt we on this side of the House will not divide on the Amendment but will make our opposition felt with regard to the Clause. It would not be right to divide on the very narrow ambit of the Amendments because they simply seek to clarify. Having said that I must add that we on this side of the House reject the entire context in which these Amendments are placed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 19

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1963
      Lords Amendment No. 46: In page 15, line 28, after "of" insert "Part I of".
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 47 and 299 to 304.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Carr: I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate these Amendments together, because they form a distinct package. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are simply paving Amendments to the two substantive Amendments proposed to Schedule 2, which are the meat of this debate, and Amendment No. 299 is also no more than a paving one.
      Amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304 go together and form the first substantial change proposed in Schedule 2, while Amendment No. 301 deals with the second important change. In explaining the purpose of Amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304, it might be helpful if I gave a brief explanation of the written statement provisions of the Con tracts of Employment Act, 1963.
      Section 4(1) of that Act requires employees to be given within 13 weeks of starting work a written statement giving specified particulars of the main terms of their employment. Section 4(8), however, provides that employees who receive written contracts of employment that include those particulars need not, in addition, be given a written statement.
      Clause 18(2) of the Bill requires that every written statement issued in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act must in future include a note about the employees' rights under Clause 5, telling him also how to proceed if he has a grievance. These are matters which the House has just been discussing.
      The aim of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 was to make corresponding provision in the case of those employees who receive written contracts instead of written statements under the Act. It requires a note, as mentioned in Clause 18(2), to be incorporated in the individual contract of employment; and paragraph 9 anticipated this being treated as a variation of the contract. But it became clear that paragraph 4 as drafted would not adequately meet this situation.
      A note of the kind mentioned in Clause 18(2), which is to be of an explanatory rather than of a contractual nature, would not easily be incorporated in a contract of employment. Moreover, to do so would mean that large employers who issue written contracts to their employees, instead of merely written statements under the Act, would be faced with a massive administrative exercise in having to draw up and issue every employee with either a complete written statement under the Act or a fresh written contract of employment, simply to include the variation introduced by Clause 18(2), and certainly it was never intended to place a burden of that magnitude on employers who issue their employees with written contracts.
      This group of Amendments is, therefore, aimed at overcoming these difficulties by maintaining the validity of the existing contracts which employees may have, without the need for this change; that is, if the note as mentioned in Clause 18(2) is given to the employee separately, in addition to his written con-
      1180
      tract, if he is given reasonable opportunity to read such a note in the course of his employment or if it is made reasonably accessible to him to do so.
      However, if the additional note is not given or made accessible in this way within one month of the coming into operation of these provisions the employee will be regarded as no longer exempted under Clause 18, and will then have to be issued with a written statement under Section 4(1). In other words, if employers who have this problem act quickly and give their employees these additional notes, they will be saved the trouble of undertaking this massive administrative task.
      We thought it right to limit this easing to a period of one month because it is important that all employees should be informed properly, formally and fully of their new rights under Clause 18. Thus, the new Part II to Schedule 2 which is contained in Amendment No. 304 reproduces Sections 4(1) to 4(9) of the Contracts of Employment Act, as amended by these provisions. We hope that this group of Amendments will ensure that individual employees will be made aware of the extra rights which they are getting under this part of the Bill, while saving employers a massive administrative effort which we do not believe to be necessary.
      As far as we know, the Post Office is the principal employer affected and, therefore, helped by this group of Amendments. Post Office employees, other than casual labour, have, since 1st October, 1969, when the Post Office became a corporation, received written contracts of employment and not merely written statements. It is, therefore, mainly the Post Office we have in mind; but this position could arise, for all we know, with other employers.
      That explains this group of Amendments dealing with the first point, and I believe that these proposals will be widely accepted and welcomed. I gather that they will not prove to be controversial.
      Mrs. Eric S. Heffer: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this part of his proposals, may I ask him to be more explicit about his reference to employees having reasonable opportunities to read the contract? Does he envisage the document being placed on notice boards? How will these

      1181
      particulars be made "reasonably available" to employees? Will he spell it out rather more fully?
      Mr. Carr: That is a fair question which I should like to answer in detail. I should like to do some research into the meaning of "reasonable" in this context. I apologise for not having done it earlier, and perhaps it will be convenient if, later in this debate, either I or another Minister deals with the matter. I imagine that this is something on which trade unions will wish to comment in the normal course of negotiating and making arrangements with their members employers.
      I come to the second major subject, namely that contained in Amendment No. 301. Whereas L hope and believe that the last subject will be considered helpful and non-controversial, I appreciate that this subject is likely to be more controversial. I wish to make it clear, first, that Amendment No. 301 does not change the original and declared intention expressed in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I may have got this wrong, but I have the feeling that some people believe that during the passage of the Bill we have deliberately put something in to tighten up, or make more stringent generally, our original intention. I assure the House that that is not so. For better or worse, our intention has been constant from the beginning.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no substantial difference between paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 as drafted and the Amendment. Will he explain what appears to be a widening of the scope of the application of this provision, because whereas paragraph 8 refers to sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 2 to the 1963 Act, that reference is omitted from Amendment No. 301. That omission seems to widen the scope of the original provision.
      Mr. Carr: That may be so, and I admit that we did not translate our intentions adequately when paragraph 8 was drafted. I think I must admit frankly to the hon. Member. We have not widened our intention but I think that our original wording did not adequately translate our intention. This Amendment therefore was brought forward in another place because it became clear to us that paragraph 8 as
      1182
      it stood, as I have just said, did not carry out what the Amendment does.
      Now I will try to explain the position as it stands at the moment, and the purpose of what we propose to do. As the law stands at the moment a man who is entitled to a payment under an employer's sick pay scheme gets that payment, and it is a term in the great majority of these schemes that if he then draws National Insurance sickness benefit or industrial injury benefit the employer is able to offset that benefit against the payment he, the employer, makes. That is a fairly standard provision. However, if that man is sick while he is under notice the employer may not, as the law now stands, offset National Insurance benefit, and the result of this is that the man gets both the guaranteed payment from the employer under the Contracts of Employment Act and National Insurance benefit. Since the introduction of earnings-related benefits this means that a man can in certain cases get nearly twice as much as he would have done if he had not gone sick or nearly twice as much as his normal earnings—to be precise, in many cases about 185 per cent. of his normal earnings—or what he would have got if sick while not under statutory notice.
      This is surely an anomaly. It was never the intention either of the Contracts of Employment Act or of the earnings-related benefits scheme that employees under notice should get more money than when working ordinarily—certainly not, as in certain cases, almost twice as much money as when working normally, or if away because of injury or sickness while in ordinary employment. The extra compensation which a man or woman can justifiably be said to deserve, and which this House admits he ought to have on being redundant, is applied through the Redundancy Payments Act. That is a problem for which Parliament has legislated, that the particular problem of compensation required by a man or woman made redundant should be met. It was never intended that on being given notice of redundancy a man or woman should benefit, when under notice, by getting, as I said, up to almost twice normal pay compared with that for his normal employment.
      Moreover, not only is this a cleat anomaly but, unfortunately, there is some evidence to suggest that this anomaly may

      1183
      have been leading to what I can only call substantial abuse in a number of cases in industry. We have been given well-documented cases where the running down or closure of a place of employment has taken place, because, unfortunately, this became necessary, in which in certain circumstances absenteeism, after the giving of notice, had risen dramatically to twice, and sometimes as much as three times, the normal incidence of absenteeism, and this very dramatic increase after the giving of notice—
      Mrs. Orme: By absenteeism is the right hon. Gentleman talking of men genuinely providing doctors' notes? Or just absenteeism?
      Mrs. Carr: No. people who, of course, have provided doctors' notes—
      Mrs. Orme: That is not absenteeism, is it?
      Mrs. Carr: This is, of course, as the House will know, indeed a very difficult subject. I am not making any specific charges. All I am saying is two things to the House. First of all, when we get circumstances where absenteeism rises suddenly to two and sometimes three times the normal incidence in a particular factory or a particular place of employment it is rather strange that this occurs. Let us assume for a moment that there is absolutely no element of abuse in it at all, there is still this anomaly. It was never the intention of either the Contracts of Employment Act or of the earnings-related scheme that the worker under notice should get substantially more than he got before he was under notice and when he was working or when away sick or injured. That was not the intention, because, I repeat, the intention of Parliament to give people under notice of redundancy compensation is expressed in the Redundancy Payments Act and that is how the extra help should be given.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mrs. Orme: There is a parallel I want to draw. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that hon. Members behind him, particularly the right hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), consistently pressed that it was right for professional people who retired early to be able to sign and draw
      1184
      unemployment benefit added to the pension which was given them—more earnings than they would get at the time they were professionally engaged—and that the Minister himself defended this practice when he was shadow Minister and was on this side of the House and we on our side were attacking the Labour Government for trying to attempt to reduce it?
      Mrs. Carr: I do not think that the hon. Member is being quite accurate or quite fair in the distinction. The other case, as, I think, both sides of the House recognised, was a matter of the basic right of entitlement to National Insurance benefits in return for a contribution record. That is an absolute principle, and there is nothing in this Lords Amendment which in any way attacks that right; there is nothing in this Lords Amendment which takes away the right of a worker, whether under notice or not under notice, to receive full National Insurance benefit to which he is entitled either for sickness or injury; there is absolutely nothing in this Lords Amendment which reduces or takes away from that right whatever.
      What we are saying is that this is well accepted—it has been accepted by the unions in collective agreements with employers—that if there is a voluntary sick pay scheme, when a worker is away through sickness or injury he receives full pay while absent. What in effect happens is that the employer pays that worker enough money to make up his National Insurance benefit to the level of his normal pay. This is what we are saying should happen also when he is under notice. The anomaly as such at the moment is that when he is under notice, and only under notice, he gets much more—up to as much as twice his normal earnings. This was never the intention of the Contracts of Employment Act, nor was it the intention of the earnings-related scheme. Nor does this Lords Amendment in any way abrogate the right of any person to National Insurance benefit to which he is entitled.
      Mrs. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that such a worker is suffering from a double disability? In the first place he is under notice; in the second place he is off sick and he is not in a position to be able to look for employment during that period. Surely this

      1185
      must weigh with the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Carr: What I have said to the hon. Gentleman and must repeat again is that anybody under notice is under this disability and that is why we have our Redundancy Payments Act, and it is the Redundancy Payments Act which provides the worker with financial compensation—or whatever word one likes to use—to take note of the unfortunate fact that he has become redundant. The purpose of the Contracts of Employment Act was to ensure a certain statutory minimum period—which, incidentally, will be generously increased under this Bill—in which he should be assured of full normal earnings for the period of notice.
      That was what the Contracts of Employment Act set out to give, and this is what we are extending in the Bill, so that when the Bill is on the Statute Book the statutory minimum periods of notice relating to length of service will be much more generous than they are at the moment. Therefore, we have the double position of somebody declared redundant on guarantee pay for an extended period of time made greater by the Bill with full entitlement to his proper National Insurance benefits. It is not right or fair to others that he should by an anomaly get much more than his colleagues who may also be under notice, or than he would have got had he been similarly sick or injured but not under notice. The fact that he is under notice, and what this means to him, is provided for under the redundancy payments scheme.
      Mr. Neil McBride: Is not the right hon. Gentleman devaluing the medical certificate issued by the doctor when he says that absenteeism rises alarmingly when men are under notice? If a man is under notice and becomes ill, should not he have that little extra on humanitarian grounds?
      Mr. Carr: The little extra is provided. It is certainly needed, and the previous Government, to their credit, in 1965 dealt with this by the redundancy payments scheme. If we are not providing what is right to meet those circumstances, the way to deal with that, if it should ever be necessary, is by revising the redundancy payments scheme and not by allowing the continuation of the completely
      1186
      unintended anomaly which I have just described.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have recently heard of a worker employed by a small employer who, in the middle of a period of sickness, was given notice. The employer then refused a redundancy payment on the basis that the employee was not redundant but was no longer fit to do the job. I do not think this would happen with a normal employer, certainly not a large employer, but a small employer can get away with this, and I should be interested to know what is the answer.
      Mr. Carr: One would need to know the exact details of the case but, as my hon. Friend undoubtedly knows, the man's entitlement to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act would have to be tested by an industrial tribunal, but I do not believe that that is relevant to the point we are discussing now. If for any reason our redundancy payments scheme is not providing as it should for cases of this kind, the way to cope with it is systematically and comprehensively to change the redundancy payments arrangements, and not to do it by allowing it to happen by chance in an arbitrary and non-comprehensive manner through an unintended anomaly. That is the basis for the Amendment. There is no doubt that the present situation has created problems and is not working either fairly or effectively at the moment. Moreover, the problem could be aggravated as a result of the Bill extending the periods of statutory notice during which guarantee payment has to be made.
      As I said a few moments ago, it should not be forgotten that the Amendment arises in the context of a general extension of statutory notice, which was provided by the Contracts of Employment Act and which we are now amending in a generous way to guarantee people minimum periods of notice, which should lengthen the period of service during which they are assured of their normal earnings. That is what the Contracts of Employment Act was intended to do and what the Amendment will do in a more generous manner than ever before.
      The position of workers who are sick while not under notice is not changed in any way. I think that is clear, but to

      1187
      avoid any misunderstanding, I wanted to state it categorically. The only people who will be worse off as a result of the Amendment are the few who, because of the anomaly in the present law which I have described, and in a chance and arbitrary manner, have a substantial financial benefit as a result of absence from work when under statutory notice. I do not believe this could be fair, and I am sure it was not the intention. If we are not providing properly for the problems of redudancy, the way to do it is not by the continuance of a chance, arbitrary anomaly of this kind. That is why I believe we were right to bring in this Amendment in another place, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr Harold Walker: I rise briefly on one small point in the first half of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I want to contrast the reality which he has found as a Minister with the flag-waving rhetoric of his hon. Friends—I exonerate him, but not his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith)—who, before the Bill was introduced, made speeches throughout the country in which they guaranteed that every worker would be given a full statement of his terms and conditions of employment.
      Mr. Dudley Smith Mr. Dudley Smith indicated dissent—
      Mrs. Walker: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If I do him an injustice, I readily apologise, but I recall that a number of his hon. Friends who take an interest in this subject made one of the great selling points of "Fair Deal at Work" that every worker would be provided with a full statement of his terms and conditions of employment. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman for not doing this in the Bill, but I am saying that the reality he has experienced now he should have urged upon his hon. Friends before they went round the country making those speeches which were based either on illusion or on an absence of understanding of the difficulties which confront any employer who tries to do this. My right hon. Friend and I 18 months ago, with our Bill in mind, were anxious to do this but found ourselves up against precisely the same difficulty.
      1188
      I do not want to pursue that point now, but to concentrate my remarks on the contemptible change that is wrought in the Contracts of Employment Act by Amendment No. 301. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that no mention of this proposal was made in "Fair Deal at Work". There was no mention of it in the Report of the Royal Commission, on which allegedly the Bill is based.
      Mr. R. Carr Mr. R. Carr indicated dissent.
      Mr. Walker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, because his right hon. and learned Friend spent an afternoon addressing a distinguished company and telling them that the Bill was based on the Royal Commission.
      Mr. Carr Mr. Carr rose——
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Walker: I will give way in a moment. I think we have put the boot in on that one, so that the whole of our proceedings should not be discredited by that piece of nonsense. There was no mention of this in my right hon. Friend's Bill. Surely we would have had this drawn to our attention when we were drafting our Bill, but I have no recollection of this problem during our period of office. Nor was this in the Consultative Document. This was sprung on us surreptitiously in another place.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is usually a very fair debater, and I am sure that he will accept that all we have ever claimed is that we agree with the analysis of the Donovan Commission, and that many of the proposals in our Bill are the same as those in the Donovan Commission Report or closely allied with them. That is the extent of the claim we have made.
      Mr. Walker: One would have to scour the Bill and the Royal Commission Report very hard to find any analogies of substance. This is something on which the right hon. Gentleman has now reached the confessional. He explicitly denies what was said by his right hon. and learned Friend before the Bill was presented to the House. If he does not agree, I can get from the Library a copy of his right hon. and learned Friend's speech and the Press reports thereon, in which he claimed that the Bill was based on Royal Commission recommendations.

      1189
      The right hon. Gentleman says that this proposal was never contemplated or intended when the Contracts of Employment Act was passed, and indeed when the Redundancy Payments Act was put through. I remember quite clearly the proceedings on the Redundancy Payments Act, and it is wrong to suggest that had there been an awareness of this matter it would have then been taken into account. I do not know whether that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. My recollection is that it was not introduced with the intenion of dealing with the situation which is envisaged in these provisions since such a situation is separate and distinct. Redundancy payments and entitlements cannot be linked to a worker's sickness during periods of notice.
      If I may deal with Amendment No. 301, it is reprehensible that the Bill, which has earned the reputation of being one of the most odious pieces of legislation to be passed through Parliament, should be used as a vehicle to attack the terms and conditions of employment of millions of workers. Workers will be exposed to such an attack when they are suffering from one of the most grievous pieces of misfortune which can befall a worker, namely, the loss of his job.
      It may be true that the loss of a job today is different from such a disaster in the 1930s. It is not such an appalling hardship because it is cushioned by redundancy payments, wage-related earnings benefits and the generally high level of social security benefits. However, the loss of a man's livelihood is still one of the most serious misfortunes that can befall a man in the whole of his working life. This puts hardship not only on the individual, but on his family. Therefore, to use this Bill as a vehicle to attack a worker in this situation is not only mean and despicable, but is a prostitution of the proceedings of Parliament.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Bill substantially increases the minimum statutory guarantee period in relation to pay which a man or woman should be able to have under the terrible circumstances which he has been describing. There can be no doubt that this Bill will greatly improve the lot of people.
      Mr. Walker: The Bill has been exposed throughout the proceedings in this House as a shabby, nasty, vicious attack on workers' rights and on freely negotiated terms and conditions of employment. This is yet another attack and I intend to expose it as such.
      The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with the original provisions as drafted in regard to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I hope that he did not intend to imply that we have accepted, even tacitly, the provisions of paragraph 8. We had intended to protest vigorously at the provisions of paragraph 8 in Schedule 2, and it was only the steam-rollering tactics of the Government in the form of their Guillotine which prevented us from so doing. Thus is democracy trampled underfoot by the guardians of Parliament who sit on the Government Front Bench. Had it not been for the wisdom and understanding of Mr. Speaker, who permitted the linking of this Amendment with earlier Amendments, the odds are that we would never have debated this matter at all in this House.
      I said that we objected to the provision as originally drafted in the Bill. I pointed out in an intervention that, according to the way we read it—the right hon. Gentleman's words seemed to confirm this—the Amendment extends the scope of what is embodied in paragraph 8 as originally drafted. The Amendment heaps injury upon injury. The right hon. Gentleman put in general terms what he saw as the effect of the Amendment.
      My noble Friend, Lord Hoy, in another place spelt out the effects of the Amendment in some detail. I am anxious not to waste time, but I think that it will be for the benefit of the House if we consider how the provision will apply in a typical example. I take that used by my noble Friend, Lord Hoy. My noble Friend considered the position of a man who is earning on average £25 a week and whose employer provides the kind of supplement to social security benefit to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Under the law as it stands, if that individual fell sick during a period of notice he would be entitled to £40: under the Contracts of Employment Act he would be guaranteed during the period of notice his normal average weekly earnings of £25 and he would receive on top of that—let us take a man

      1191
      with three children—£15 a week, bringing him up to £40 a week.
      In the ordinary way, if the man were not under notice, the employer would be required to bring up the £15 to £25 during sickness. However, when the man is under notice he is guaranteed the £25, so that, with the £25 "sickness benefit", would make £50. The employer is entitled, under the Contracts of Employment Act, to offset the £10 he would normally have added to the State benefit, thus reducing the £50 to £40. That is the present position.
      Under the provisions as drafted in Amendment No. 301, the employer would be entitled to set off against the £25 guaranteed minimum wage the whole of the £25—not merely the £10 that the employer would have added to the supplement, but also the £15 that the man would receive from the State; so at a stroke he has reduced the man's £50 to £25.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that the intention was to eliminate the anomaly whereby one man, because he was in such a scheme, might receive more than his fellow worker who was not in a scheme, thus establishing equity between the two. Having shown how in the hypothetical case I have taken the man's earnings that week would be reduced from £50 to £25, we axe now entitled to look at the position of his fellow worker, with whom parity is being established and who works in an establishment where the employer does not provide a supplement to the State sickness benefit. If such a person fell sick during his period of notice, he would be entitled under the provisions of the Contracts of Employment Act to £25 plus the £15 State benefit, making £40 in all. Before the introduction of this Amendment, when a man with average earnings of £25 was sick during a period of notice, he received £15 in State benefit. In other words, £40 on the one hand, and £40 on the other. We now see a curious method of putting them on the same level. The Government propose to chop the first man to £25, leaving the other at £40.
      It is the kind of language used by the right hon. Gentleman which causes us anxiety. According to the logic of his case, the Government will now draw attention to the new anomaly which has been created, and, presumably, seek to
      1192
      establish parity between person A and person B by chopping person B to £25. Is that to be the next stage?
      This change was introduced not in this House but in the other place. It was done almost surreptitiously at 12.30 a.m. when their Lordships were led to understand that it was introduced at the request of the employers. We are entitled to ask who they are and what consultation took place with the trade unions. However, we need have no doubt at all. Major employers employing scores of thousands of work people stand to receive a massive pay-off. They are the same employers who invested heavily in the return of a Tory Government last June. They are getting their pay-off.
      It is important to note that it is only the employers who are the beneficiaries of this proposal. There is no saving to State funds. The State's liability to pay sickness benefit is undiminished. It is the terms and conditions of employment, freely negotiated, which will be upset by this change.
      The sickness schemes operated by employers are schemes which have been negotiated through the machinery of collective bargaining. If there were a need to introduce this change, if there were the abuses and anomalies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, why did not the employers do the job themselves and renegotiate their schemes? Surely it was open to them to do so? They could have sat round a table with their workers' representatives with whom originally they negotiated their schemes and told them that different State benefits required a different approach and that their schemes should be renegotiated. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman is doing their dirty work. Perhaps they are not sufficiently brass-faced but believe that the right hon. Gentleman is.
      Whatever verbal allegiance the Government have expressed to the principles of free collective bargaining, and for all their words about the sanctity of contract, it is clear that this proposal is a hollow sham. Not only are the Government disrupting freely negotiated contracts; arbitrarily, they have worsened the terms and conditions of many workers at a stroke.
      We have heard a great deal about abuse. If there is abuse, it is open to employers to renegotiate with the parties

      1193
      with whom originally they agreed the scheme which is said to be being abused. I shall not attempt to disprove what the Government say, but I challenge the Government to prove it. So far, we have had no proof. We hear allegations of abuses of social security benefit, but we have precious little proof.
      In any event, if there are some abuses, why should the innocent suffer? Many people genuinely fall sick during periods of notice. The Government ask why a sick man should qualify for more pay during a period of notice than when he is normally at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) dealt with that. The man is suffering a double injury. Apart from the loss of his livelihood, he is suffering from sickness and, in addition to any suffering, discomfort or inconvenience that it causes, it impairs his ability to seek new work. This is a problem which the Redundancy Payments Act was never intended to meet. What is more, we ought to bear in mind that, usually, payment of sickness benefit is inseparable from the production of a medical certificate. Are the Government seriously calling into question the integrity of the general practitioners who issue the medical certificates?
      8.45 p.m.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to absenteeism. I understand from the report in the other place that it was specifically absenteeism in the coal mining industry which had been brought to the attention of their Lordships. I wonder what knowledge of the coal mining industry resides with those who sympathise with such arguments. On this point about people receiving a double benefit and enhancing their income by being absent from work, with respect to some of my hon. Friends, we all know those who are absent from this House so often doubling, trebling and multiplying their incomes by their absence. We do not hear about that. Apparently that is in order.
      I return to the position in the coal mining industry. My constituency is in the heart of the South Yorkshire coal mining industry. I have many miners among my constituents. Every coal mining Member can confirm that there are thousands of miners in this country who daily struggle to work when they
      1194
      should be in their beds. They cough and spit all the way to the pithead. Many of them should not be at work, but they cannot afford to stay away. Therefore, who can blame them if, the chopper having fallen, having been told that they are no longer wanted at the pithead, they decide to stay at home? Indeed, they ought not to be at home. As a matter of social responsibility, we should provide and send them to places to be cured of the ailments which they have contracted in this terrible industry.
      It was said in the other place that such absences created difficulty for employers to readjust work schedules, and so on. There may be something in that. I have had my share of industrial management so I can appreciate the problems which arise, but that is hardly convincing as a justification of the step which is now proposed. After all, we are talking about people who have been told that their services are no longer required. Having been told that, their absence from work is then condemned because they are disrupting production.
      You cannot have it both ways. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not dream of suggesting that you cannot have it both ways. The employers cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "Mr. Jones, you are redundant to requirements. We do not need you. You are surplus to requirements. But do not stop off next week because we need you to maintain production." It is an insult. It seems an extraordinary equation to put on a par the loss of a man's job and the marginal effect—it cannot be more—of continuing the arrangements which the Government are wiping out.
      It is also striking that the employer is given no alternative. The Bill does not give us the permissive "may" that we so often argue about. It is the mandatory "shall". The employer shall not exercise discretion, but shall set off the social security benefit against whatever payment a man might draw under the Contracts of Employment Act.
      I should like to put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman. What will be the position if a redundant worker, who might otherwise have benefited from the existence of such a scheme, decides at that moment to contract out of the scheme

      1195
      unilaterally? The payment of the employer's supplement is normally dependent upon the employee who is off sick producing some documentary evidence about the amount of State benefit which he has received. I think that he gives that information on the form BS. 12 which he has to send in to his employer. It is only when he sends that information that the employer knows how much has been drawn and, in this situation, how much has to be offset against the amount of pay to which the man would otherwise be entitled under the provisions of the Contracts of Employment Act. Suppose he decides that the post will be late, or that he accidentally drops it into the fire or puts it to some other purpose and, therefore, does not send it. As I see it, it would be extremely difficult for the employer—indeed, an employee would have recourse to law—if he did not meet his obligations to the full under the Contracts of Employment Act. It would then be a matter for the employer subsequently to have to pursue repayment from the individual empoyee. If I am wrong, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.
      This is a matter of profound importance to the thousands of workers who will be affected, more particularly to the 740 workers in my constituency at Don-caster who are threatened with redundancy—indeed, they have been told that they are surplus to requirements—by their employer, I.C.I., which provides such a scheme. If I can offer them any useful advice to make sure that in the weeks ahead they get what they would have got had their redundancy occurred during the last few weeks, I shall be only too ready to do so. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain this.
      The right hon. Gentleman claims that the Amendment will remove an anomaly. I hoped to show that far from removing an anomaly, it merely creates another and wider anomaly. In any event, for the right hon. Gentleman to try to remove an anomaly such as this by an injustice is reprehensible. I hope it is something that not only my hon. Friends but some of his hon. Friends will not accept.
      Having embarked on this line and having breached what seems to us to be a principle, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will not, as one
      1196
      of my hon. Friends suggested in an intervention, take it further? We hope that he will not. We hope that this will not be the start of a sweeping attack, not on double benefits, which are already prohibited by legislation, but on an individual who is in receipt of State benefit receiving a supplement from any other source. If it is such an attack, I beg the Government to think again. If they do not indicate readiness to think again, we shall oppose them in the Lobby, and I hope that one or two of the Minister's conscience-stricken hon. Friends will join us.
      Mr. Tom King: The discussion has focussed largely on Lords Amendment No. 301, on which I wish to concentrate. I must confess to some surprise that we are discussing this Amendment. It seems somewhat foreign to the rest of the Bill. While not discussing the merits at this stage, we seem to have moved on to rather different ground.
      My right hon. Friend made various points very fairly in his original presentation. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has expressed concern, although I thought that a number of his charges were grossly excessive and detracted very much from the merits of what otherwise could have been a cogently argued case.
      The suggestion that the Bill is an employers' pay-off cannot be justified on the facts. If the hon. Member had heard some of the comments which have been made to me about the problems that longer-term notice will raise for employers, and the problems of longer terms of notice affecting a relatively far wider number of people than merely those who are sick while under notice—
      Mr. Harold Walker: I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to correct him. It was this Amendment to which I referred as the pay-off to the employer, and not the Bill. I recognise, as does the hon. Member, that it will create enormous problems for employers.
      Mr. King: I recognise that the hon. Member always seeks to be fair and I knew that he would not want to make a charge like that unless he balanced the pros and cons.
      My right hon. Friend has always recognised that the Bill is a matter of

      1197
      balancing certain interests and issues and trying to effect a fair balance for the parties concerned. Therefore, the charge that this is a pay-off for employers must be immediately contradicted, because it simply cannot be justified on the facts.
      Mr. Heffer: It is important to get this clearly on the record. The Prime Minister is reported as saying the other night, in the 1922 Committee, that it was not understood by his colleagues—meaning hon. Members opposite—how the balance would be tipped in favour of employers in industrial negotiations.
      Mr. King: I hesitate to correct the hon. Member, because I have remarked recently about reports of private committees. What he says is not an accurate quotation. I suggest that his source must be corrected in this case, although in other cases I admit that we have had remarkably accurate quotations from private committee. The hon. Member's quotation is a distortion of what my right hon. Friend said.
      Mr. Prescott: Tell us what he said.
      Mr. King: The second point referred to by the hon. Member for Doncaster, which I thought far from fair, was his suggestion that there was something mandatory about the Amendment, in that it prevented any negotiation with employers for different terms. I know the hon. Member's great experience in these matters, and I was surprised that he should suggest that there was some compulsion on employers against doing anything better. That suggestion was totally valueless.
      The hon. Member further laid great emphasis on the word "shall", as meaning that the employer had no alternative. There is nothing to prevent individual employers, by negotiations of the kind that hon. Members opposite recognise, making certain arrangements between a union and a company.
      It seemed to me that the debate moved on to rather confused ground. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) touched on a valid point when he referred to doctors. The hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested that it was an insinuation against doctors.
      Mr. Orme: The implication was that doctors are corrupt, in the sense that
      1198
      they are issuing certificates to which the persons who apply for them are no: entitled.
      Mr. King: That is exactly the point. The hon. Member suggested that there was an attack on doctors. All those who know about these matters will realise that this is an extremely difficult problem for doctors. The situation is almost impossible for them. They are faced with the prospect of making a very difficult decision and in their situation it is understandable that we should arrive at the sort of results that my right hon. Friend has suggested that the figures show.
      The hon. Member for Doncaster affirmed the point that there is something psychosomatic about receiving notice. It can have different effects on different people and it could well contribute to grounds for the issue of a doctor's certificate.
      I am not clear what sized animal we have in our sights in the Amendment. Many of us would like some more information about the kind of monster that we are tackling, and would like to know whether it represents a major problem at this stage. I appreciate that the point made about the Redundancy Payments Act is valid and should be taken into account. I realise that we must deal with these anomalies. Although individually they seem small they contribute to a very unsatisfactory situation if they are allowed to continue.
      Nevertheless, I am concerned about the situation of the people with whom we are dealing tonight, albeit that it is difficult to establish the validity of all their claims. I should like some more details as to how major a class this is. At the same time, one must recognise—this I support, and I appreciate the real problem which it will pose for many employers—that in this Bill we are taking far wider steps, steps not adequately acknowledged by the Opposition, to do more for those under notice by this important provision regarding extended periods.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: The main problem here is that the Government are not dealing with payments made under a Government scheme. These are private payments, payments as between

      1199
      employer and employee, and, as I understand it, the way the Government are going about it amounts to nothing less than a subsidy to the private employer. We are looking not so much at State benefits as at benefits derived from a private scheme which is an arrangement between an employer and his employee.
      These schemes vary widely. Some of them are of a contributory basis and, as such, they amount to insurance which an employee takes out. When a person has, during his employment, insured himself against sickness, how dare any Government now intervene and say that he has no right to draw, or cannot be permitted to draw, benefits from a scheme to which he has contributed? Yet, as I see it, that is exactly what the Government are doing.
      We all know that a small minority of people may well indulge in certain abuses, but it is too easy for people to whip up hysteria about that on the basis that the taxpayer has to pay for it. There is no suggestion of that here. In very many cases, a person who has contributed towards something is demanding benefits when he needs them.
      We are invited to take into account the person who is on notice. What is the maximum period for which notice would run? I do not know. This should be made abundantly clear. I have had certain responsibilities in these matters, and I know very well that one of the problems which one comes up against is that it would probably cost more to stop an anomaly-than one would gain from stopping it. What kind of machinery would be necessary in order to stop what kind of payment? I shall take a lot of convincing that the anomaly of the man on notice is very widespread. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) on this point; I should like far more information about the equation. For instance, how much would it take to prevent anomalies of this sort, as compared with what would be the benefit accruing from so doing?
      We are running into something here which I defy any Government to be able to see through. For example, are we talking about a person on a payment-by-results scheme? We hear talk of employers making up the difference between the insurance and what the man
      1200
      generally earns. But there is a huge range of differences. Is the person concerned on a flat basic rate, or is he on a payment by results scheme? I could cite the cases of hundreds of thousands of people whose take-home pay varies by as much as £10 a week. To what point does the typical employer make up the absentee's pay? Generally speaking, it is up to his basic rate.
      9.0 p.m.
      To say, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that people in that category would be taking home 85 per cent. more than if they were working is nonsense. I know a little about being off work sick and receiving basic pay. I can think of a number of industries where low basics are accepted only because there is adequate opportunity to make pretty big bonus earnings. In that sense, therefore, no employer is compensating a worker who is absent ill to the extent of the man's take-home pay if he were not ill. It is wrong to argue that 80 per cent. more can be taken home.
      I believe that more than half the working population are on payment-by-results schemes. The miners have been mentioned, and many of them are on such schemes. I defy any Minister or organisation to make a computation which could result in their being able to tell us the percentage in excess of his take-home pay that the employee now on notice would be taking home.
      It seems to me that the Amendment was a last-minute effort. Probably there was an inducement by some employers to get the Government to stick this kind of thing in. The Bill itself is anomalous; it is in very bad odour to begin with. Therefore, the argument may have been, "It cannot stink much more if we stick some of this in. We may as well get the thing through in this way," I object to using this kind of legislation, primarily because it is purely a subsidy to employers anyway.
      Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Government are hired by the employers.
      Mrs. Lee: I do not disagree. Perhaps I was being more polite than my hon. Friend. I was saying that the Amendment was stuck in at the last minute in another place because of an approach to the

      1201
      Government by certain types of employers. This kind of legislation, bad as it is, should not be used to affect benefit arrangements between employer and employee.
      The Tory Party has always argued that we should rely more on private schemes instead of widening the scope of the National Insurance schemes, as we aimed to do. We begin to see now why hon. Members opposite say that. The unholy alliance between employers and the Tory Party is becoming more and more obvious. If working people are to be forced to depend upon private schemes, which can then be manipulated in this way by a Tory Government, I am certain that we were absolutely right to try to take it out of the realm of private employers to influence the position of working people, especially at a time when a man is on notice and when, with 800,000-odd people out of work, heaven only knows when he will obtain further employment anyway. To introduce such an Amendment at a time when the Government are responsible for the horribly high rate of employment is too fantastic for words, and we shall oppose it.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have seldom heard more excited exaggeration on anything than I heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). I thought that he was trying to make a case against the Government which he knew to be very thin. Not even the Opposition can afford to get into the position of supporting an anomaly, which gives advantage to a few people over many other employees and leads the others to say, "Seeing this going on, we had better get on the bandwagon as well." When there is an anomaly of this kind, the Government have a right to deal with it. Perhaps it would have been better to have done so in another Bill, but this Bill is as suitable a vehicle as any.
      I do not believe that an employer should sack anyone who is sick. At least, it would have to be exceptional. If someone is off sick for a very long time, then the employer must think in terms that he cannot really keep the man on for an extended length of time. But in normal circumstances, when a man is sick he should not be dismissed. It does sometimes happen, however, which is why I raised with my right hon. Friend the
      1202
      question of redundancy payments. I had heard that there was sometimes cases where a man was dismissed but did not get redundancy payment. In such cases, the employer does not usually have a sickness scheme.
      I am all in favour of employers extending their own sickness schemes and of unions negotiating with them for such schemes. If one can put forward sickness schemes which do not contain anomalies, one is more likely to get the employers to negotiate them, but if one allows anomalies to persist that are to their disadvantage, they will think twice before they introduce sickness schemes or expand the scope.
      Mr. Harold Walker: If it is the case that there are abuses, or, because of the passage of time and changes of circumstance and condition, the original conception of a scheme becomes irrelevant or outdated, surely it is open in the first instance to the parties who negotiated it and accepted it as part of the terms and conditions of employment, to renegotiate. We have had no evidence from the Government that any of the employers seeking this change have sought to renegotiate. It is part of my case that they have asked the Government to impose it instead of resorting to the machinery of free collective bargains, which has been so lauded on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Lewis: It is difficult to answer that but my reply would be that employers and unions together may have sensed that there is some form of abuse of a scheme but that the employers may have taken the view that it would be very difficult to get the unions at official level to accept that there was an abuse.
      Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) is wrong in thinking that collective bargaining can come into this at all. The employer must do what he is now doing. He cannot alter it by collective bargaining.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Do I understand—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is best not to have an intervention upon an intervention.
      Mr. Lewis: We will leave that as it is, since my right hon. Friend says that it is not negotiable.

      1203
      There are people who are under notice who are perfectly fit and well, so they are not involved. Others who are sick are not under notice. People who are sick and not under notice are not affected. Clearly, they do not come within this regulation. The only people affected are those who are sick and are under notice and most of those—this is what clearly concerns the employers, I would guess—are men who have gone sick after they have been given notice. It is idle to pretend that this cannot and does not happen. It must clearly be disruptive if a group of people who are under notice—and extended notice is rightly becoming general in industry—suddenly decide to go sick, having discovered that they are so much better off if they do, for instead of being without them a month from today, the employer would be without them tomorrow. Hon. Members opposite say that if they can get advantage from so doing, there is no reason for them not to do so, but if the practice became extensive the disadvantage would be to the bulk of the workers and the advantage entirely to the minority.
      9.15 p.m.
      In the long run, it is to the advantage of employers to provide their own good sickness benefits. Hon Members say that these should be negotiated with the trade unions, that it would make negotiations to improve sickness schemes so much more difficult. It is an anomaly which they exaggerate, because it applies to a few people who have been fly enough to sense that they can get advantage from the arrangement.
      It is said that we are casting aspersions on doctors by suggesting that their certificates are not always valid. But the situation in the National Health Service is such that if someone says that he is sick, at least in the short term, the doctor, busy as he is, will give him a certificate. That is proven by the fact that where there is a factory doctor, it is much more difficult to get a certificate than in factories which do not have their own medical service, and very few factories have their own service.
      Opposition Members are exaggerating the difficulty. Furthermore, they are encouraging those who would take advantage of a loophole and in general they are doing a disservice to workers
      1204
      who want to do what is right and not to get twice what they should have. Hon. Members want a better sickness benefit and they should be asking for an improvement in sickness benefits and not supporting the continuation of an anomaly which the Government are justified in tackling.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) spoke of abuses and the way in which someone can see his doctor, say that he has a pain in his back, is 64 years and eleven months old, and be willy nilly given a medical certificate. It is not like that and it never has been. The procedure has been significantly tightened up in the last ten years and there are several ways in which to demon-state that. Hon. Members may try it out themselves for a start. A doctor, if he believes a man is swinging the lead—and this was referred to in another place—may not wish to give a certificate and can insert in a box at the bottom of the certificate "R.M.O." What he is saying to the insurance officer is, "Do not pay this man any money; I want him sent to the regional medical officer."
      I can assure the hon. Gentleman that on many occasions doctors in my area, and in other parts of the country, do that. It does not end there. There are such things as sick visitors, often people with no medical experience, coming from the Ministry of Social Security visiting patients. Lord Robens referred to some of these when he made his representations to the Ministry.
      Nor does it end there, because when the sick visitor has made a decision one way or another the insurance officer has the opportunity of deciding whether to allow the claim to go forward. So there is the regional medical officer, the sick visitor and the doctor with the opportunity in the first place to refuse the certificate or secondly to give one but to refer him to the regional medical officer. These are the hurdles over which a man must jump to get this benefit. Let us get that out of the way.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that in most cases the doctor does not reach the R.M.O. stage until the person has been sick for a week or two and he wants him to so

      1205
      back to work. If the man refuses and the doctor thinks that he ought to return, that is when the stage is reached.
      Mr. Skinner: I dealt with these cases for 12 to 15 years before I came here and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if a doctor decides to refer a man to the regional medical officer that is what happens once he has inserted "R.M.O.". It does not depend on that. There are many other ways in which he can act. There are random samples taken by the regional medical officer, quite irrespective of whether a man has been off work at any time during his working career. A man can be sent to the regional medical officer despite the fact that for 30 years previously he has never been off work, sick or injured. The hon. Gentleman ought to study the regulations before he comes here talking such tommy-rot.
      I want to refer to a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) who said that this provision had been inserted at the last moment. I do not agree. I think that the Government have been waiting to insert this somewhere. I take the view that it would have gone into the original Bill had it not been for the fact that members of the Tory Party had to sell it to the country—had to speak on platforms selling the Bill. They did not succeed to a great extent, but they could not afford to have this part in the Bill at the outset.
      The reason why I say this is that when the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963 was introduced it was an election gimmick. We were approaching an election and the then Government under Harold Macmillan were blown off course. The Contracts of Employment Act was built up with a big ballyhoo and given to the workers as a sop after four years of savage attacks. That is why the Act was introduced and that is why no reference was made to the man who had to be off sick or injured during his period of notice. That is why after the first 12, 13, 14 months the Government are taking this opportunity to put the record straight. This points to the fact that we are in a post-election period instead of a pre-election period.
      I have said enough to show that this is not an afterthought. It is a deliberate act of policy. This provision would have
      1206
      been inserted in the Social Security Bill but for the fact that the Government knew that they could introduce it at a later stage. So they brought it in shortly after midnight in the House of Lords when few peers were about and when the only exchange that took place on the subject was between Lord Drumalbyn—that is an unusual title, if ever I heard one [Laughter.]—and Jack Diamond—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I apologise, I should say Lord Diamond, who inquired about the cost.
      I did not have the honour to be an hon. Member when Jack Diamond, as he then was, was in this place, but I am told that he was very keen on inquiring into the cost of everything. That was his preoccupation when he was here. He is doing the same in the House of Lords.
      Lord Hoy attempted to put the record straight, but little was said until, fortunately, the matter came back here. Earl Jellicoe—I prefer to call him "Earl" rather than anything else—said in the other place that this proposal had not come forward previously because of representations from the National Coal Board.
      Mr. Orme: Why was nothing about that said today?
      Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister made no reference to the N.C.B., which at that time was headed by Lord Robens, who was negotiating for himself two pay packets worth £200 a week each. Representations were submitted to the Ministry and Earl Jellicoe made it clear that it is as a direct result of those representations that this Amendment must be made.
      I speak as an ex-miner, not only for myself and those I represent but for a more militant hon. Member who is not in his place but who has played a great part in dealing with this Bill, both here and in another place. I refer, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is suffering from glandular fever. He is a far more militant ex-miners' representative than I am and he has asked me to make these representations on his behalf, mainly because of the furore that this proposal has caused in the mining industry; and hon. Members will be aware

      1207
      that my hon. Friend represents many thousands of miners.
      Earl Jellicoe referred to absenteeism being at the rate of 50 per cent., particularly during periods of notice. I have done some arithmetic, and my arithmetic is about as good as my knowledge of most other subjects. Be that as it may, if one takes the figure of 40,000 miners who retired or were made redundant last year, and estimates that 50 per cent. of them were taking part in this exercise, then, being conservative and allowing not £80 but £90 in each case—the sum which they could draw, according to Earl Jellicoe—we are talking in terms of £1 million. In other words, it is being said that of 300,000 miners, not 40,000—let us, to be conservative, halve the figure—but 20,000 are taking £1 million out of these funds.
      Whether or not Lawrence Daly reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of my remarks, they will be drawn to his attention. Next time he is discussing finance with Mr. Ezra, I urge him to ask whether it is all right for the miners to be getting an extra £1 million from the Exchequer? Some might think that if they are not able to get it by one means they should be entitled to get it by another. I have no doubt that Mr. Daly, Secretary of the N.U.M., will be confronting Mr. Ezra over this matter.
      9.30 p.m.
      This is more serious than some of my hon. and right hon. Friends would suggest. It is very serious indeed, because the very first victims of this Bill, which, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) tells me, will get the Royal Assent on Wednesday night—and this man is wise beyond all belief about this—will be the very people whom we discussed at great length in this House this afternoon between 3.30 and 6.30—the men on the Clyde. Those are the people who will get hammered because of the Bill—and it is rather ironical, perhaps more than ironical, that Lord Robens had a hand in that as well.
      We cannot expect hon. Members opposite to support us in the Lobby on this issue because this Bill is part of the Tory class strategy enunciated ever since the Tory Party resumed office on 18th June last year, but I want to refer to some
      1208
      comments made when what was then the Contracts of Employment Bill of 1963 was going through the House. Having listened to the Secretary of State today about this matter being an anomaly and discovered at the last minute, it is rather remarkable to find that, when that Bill was being debated in Committee, this matter was discovered then by the then Member for Aylesbury—a Tory of course—and he moves Amendments about it and he was replied to by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, none other than the present Leader of the House, who replied to his hon. Friend:
      "These Amendments would remove the present safeguards in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 for the employee absent from work during notice because of sickness and leave, and would put nothing in their place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th March, 1963; c. 196.]
      In 1963, prior to a General Election, these were safeguards. In 1971, 12 months after a Tory General Election victory, they have become regarded as an abuse. Day after day we read in the newspapers of hon. Members opposite attacking the integrity of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and yet we have this illustration of the present Government, who once said that employees must get their sickness pay and minimum notice and guaranteed payments, but now say that all that should be abolished.
      Mr. Loughlin: I cannot possibly hope to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his speech, but I hope to pose one or two questions which I think ought to be posed, very plainly and very simply to the right hon. Gentleman.
      We have listened to two hon. Gentlemen opposite, one the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), who has made his speech and gone, and the other the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) who, by coincidence, has made his speech and gone, and I am rather sorry that they have gone. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
      Mr. R. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman wishes. I was just thinking, of all hon. Members who have sat fairly steadily throughout our debates on this Bill, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman ought not to have made criticism of

      1209
      my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King).
      Mr. Loughlin: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is defending his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that he could not understand why this issue was included in the Bill as it is completely foreign to the rest of the Bill. I, too, wonder why it is in. Sickness and industrial injury benefits have nothing to do with the Industrial Relations Bill. I am led to suspect that there has been some behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, and that this provision is apparently an afterthought. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why and when it was thought desirable to introduce the provision.
      It was suggested that there had been abuse, but the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, in defending the Government, far from talking about abuse, argued that the total number of people who would be affected by the provision was very small and that we were exaggerating the position. If the number is so small, why is the argument based upon abuse, and why must we bother about it at all?
      Abuse of sickness benefits has been talked about for many years. When I was in the Department of Health and Social Security it was a cardinal principle that the patient/doctor relationship was sacrosanct. Any attack on a doctor alleging that he was enabling people to abuse the benefits by issuing a certificate when he should not have done was always refuted. The right hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If his right hon. Friend is taking the line that medical practitioners in the health service are so incompetent, corrupt and frightened of their patients that they are issuing certificates which allow people to secure money on false pretences, that is a very serious charge. If a Minister of the Crown makes by implication a charge of that kind he should be prepared to substantiate it with the full facts.
      Paragraph 3A(2) of Amendment No. 301 states:
      "If during any part of the period of notice the employee is incapable of work because of sickness or injury, and—"
      1210
      It may be argued that there may be abuse—I would not argue it myself—if a person who receives a notice goes to a doctor saying that he does not feel so good. But if the man is suffering from an industrial injury and it is argued that there is abuse, then it can be said that the man is abusing the situation.
      To establish an industrial injury for an increase in industrial injuries benefit there must be a water-tight case. A man cannot establish a claim for industrial injuries unless there is clear evidence from the man involved, corroborated by his employer. If the case is not corroborated, the injury benefit is not allowed. Arguments which by a stretch of the imagination can be applied to sickness cannot be applied to an industrial injury case. Since such claims must be corroborated by an employer, there can be no question of abuse.
      I should like the hon. Gentleman to reply to this question. A number of first-line supervisory personnel are likely to become redundant, in the same way as are chief executives in these days because this is happening throughout the whole spectrum of industry. Many of these supervisory personnel are engaged on what loosely are known as staff conditions. One of those staff conditions is that they get paid "work or play". I accept what the Secretary of State says that this is not mandatory and that there can still be negotiations on improvements. One tragedy of this situation will be that a number of employers will take advantage of these provisions and will take the maximum rather than the minimum.
      Will the hon. Gentleman say whether employees engaged on nebulous staff conditions such as the "work or play" conditions I have described, will continue to be paid after this provision has been enacted? I am inclined to feel that this is something of a fiddle. It is a backdoor method of dealing with the situation.
      The Government would be wise to think again about this. Neither they nor industrialists will find it easy to get cooperation from workpeople in the present industrial climate. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot get it into their thick skulls that workpeople cannot be expected to increase productivity when all they are doing is working themselves and their mates out of jobs. The figure

      1211
      of 800,000 unemployed will be increased this month, because a substantial number of the 150,000 youngsters who left school recently will not get a job for many months. In such a situation, it is the height of impudence for the Government to attempt to use such a back-door method of cutting benefits.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. David Stoddart: The more I have listened to and watched these debates the more convinced I have become that the bland countenance of the Secretary of State masks a vicious and class-biassed mind. The Amendment reveals it more than anything else and I am glad that the Amendment was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker).
      Like others, I cannot understand why this provision is introduced into this Bill. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said, if it is to be introduced at all it should be part of another Bill. I cannot understand the haste in introducing it unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested, the Minister is under such great pressure from big business, whether in the form of nationalised industries or other big business, that he has become a mere lapdog.
      Employers who have introduced sickness benefit schemes are being offered a reward for their previous benevolence. This may well be what the Minister has in mind. In truth, there is little benevolence on the part of most employers. These fringe benefits, as they are called, have been fought for by working people over a long period and many working people have sacrificed earnings to get this benefit and other fringe benefits. Because of this provision, they may well be penalised twice—first, through having accepted a lower wage for better fringe benefits and, now, if they are sick while under notice, because they will lose part of the money they would otherwise have had.
      In view of all this, I hope that hon. Members opposite will ignore all the claptrap which has been talked about doctors' certificates. With a few notable exceptions who prefer playing golf to looking after their patients, members of the medical profession are very conscientious. They do not give medical certificates at the drop of a hat. Most of them will not countenance the lead swinger.
      1212
      I hope sincerely that hon. Members in all parts of the House will reject the Amendment.
      Mr. Orme: Some very important points have been made in this debate. A number of my hon. Friends have asked what this provision is doing in the Industrial Relations Bill, since it has nothing to do with the general lay-out of the Bill and deals with social security benefits relating to sickness and industrial injury. As one of the seven Opposition Members who served on the Committee which considered the Social Security Bill, I know why this provision was not in that Bill. There were enough benefits withdrawn from industrial workers in the Bill without the addition of this provision.
      Following the withdrawal of the three waiting days for unemployment, sickness and industrial injury benefits, we now find that what is happening to industrial workers is topped by a Minister who says in this Bill that a worker who goes sick while he is under notice is getting a fantastic amount of money over and above his legal entitlement and that it must be stopped.
      Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about redundancy and benefits. Then he alluded to doctors. He did not specifically refer to doctors until he was challenged. He started to talk about absenteeism, and said that there was a large increase. It was then that it was pointed out to him that he was discussing workers who were in receipt of medical certificates and, therefore, that he was directly accusing doctors of malpractice since it followed that they were issuing certificates for benefits.
      The right hon. Gentleman persists in saying that this is normal and natural. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, one does not necessarily come by a medical certificate easily. It has been my experience in industry that doctors show a good deal of resistance. They are not prepared to give certificates. In a collective sense, doctors tend to be extremely conservative. They are not given to generosity. Many doctors examine patients who insist that they are entitled to benefit and refer them to the regional medical officer. If a doctor puts that on a certificate his patient has to see the regional medical officer. If that

      1213
      happens, the patient has no redress. He cannot go back to his general practitioner.
      We are entitled to know a little more about the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's case. He referred to a figure of 185 per cent. That means 85 per cent. in excess of a person's entitlement. We should be told on what figures the 185 per cent. is based. We are entitled to know how much abuse there has been over the last 12 months. How many thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds are involved? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give us those figures, then his case is based on supposition and on the case that the employers have made that they want something done about it.
      Further, we are entitled to know the employers who have made representations. We know that the National Coal Board is one of them. We feel that we are entitled to know what the employers' case is based on. Where do they see the abuse?
      I asked about professional people who, on retirement, drew unemployment benefit for perhaps two years. We had the classic case of the noble Lord Montgomery, and others, who claimed the benefit. We also had the case, often pleaded in this House by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), of the retired bank manager and of many other people who, over a period of two years, legally applied for and obtained unemployment benefit. We were told that it was a statutory right.
      Many sickness schemes have been negotiated on the basis of joint contributions by employer and employee. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that, in effect, it means a financial bonanza for the employer, leaving the employee purely on State benefit. It is no use the Conservative Party always saying that it is a pity that the trade unions do not negotiate more and better fringe benefits; that they ought to be using their energies to get better sickness pay, better redundancy pay, better holiday pay, and other such factors. As soon as these benefits are negotiated, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite attack them by a reduction in the State benefits which run alongside them.
      1214
      We are talking about workers who have been made redundant and who, during their redundancy term, go sick. It is a narrow point. They are entitled to four weeks' redundancy pay, although this is to be increased. So the Minister goes round the country and, in glowing terms, states: "We have increased the amount of redundancy notice; therefore, a worker is entitled to and will get this, that, and the other". But he does not say that he will reduce that by any benefit that a worker may have been lucky enough to have negotiated with his employer.
      Many of the people who are made redundant and are genuinely sick face a most difficult time in their lives. Many of them are older people. Yet they are to be chased for a matter of a few pounds. We hear of the golden handshake and the thousands of pounds that certain people get from industry. They get it as a redundancy payment. Good luck to them if they can get it. My hon. Friends and I will not see a situation in which people can get that type of golden handshake, but thousands of industrial workers are penalised because they might get £1 or £2 when they are sick at the same time as they are redundant.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mrs. Skinner: My hon. Friend has referred to golden handshakes. I mentioned in my speech that at the very time when Lord Robens was making representations to the Department about the alleged abuse by the miner aged 64 years and 11 months who had served for 50 years in the industry, he was negotiating two pay packets for himself of £200 a week each. The point needs to be made that at the same time he was getting a golden handshake into the bargain.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has put Lord Robens in perspective and has finally rounded it off.
      A worker does not start to receive wage-related benefit until he has been off work through sickness or unemployment for 12 days. Will the first fortnight not take effect, or will it take effect only when the wage-related benefit starts? We are entitled to be told.
      We have pulled out from under the stone another of the diabolical measures which the Government are writing into the Bill. We were told earlier that all

      1215
      this was dealt with in the Schedule, but because of the guillotine we have never debated the Schedule. When the Bill went to the other place, this proposal was spelled out in full. It comes back to us as Lords Amendment No. 301. If, by negotiation with the Chair, we had not coupled that Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 46, it would not have been discussed now. Thousands of industrial workers would have been affected by this measure and it might have never been discussed in the House of Commons. It is a disgrace, and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on Lords Amendment No. 46 to show their complete opposition to Lords Amendment No. 301, which obviously we shall not reach to be able to vote on it.
      Mrs. Heffer: The debate has rightly concentrated on Lords Amendment No. 301. Before I comment on some of the issues raised by that Amendment, I should like to ask the Secretary of State to make certain that during his reply we are given more details of what will be the reasonable opportunities for workers as regards the notes that will be made available to them concerning the Contracts of Employment Act.
      We need to have this spelled out because it is important to the worker to know how those reasonable opportunities will be granted—whether something will be displayed on the notice board or whether he must apply to his foreman or go to the local office or whatever it may be. It is of the utmost importance that workers should know this. We need to have it spelled out in detail.
      The Government need to answer clearly the points which have been made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) made an absolutely first-class speech—a speech that requires an answer. He raised many issues in respect of which the House and the country will want to know the Government's view in some detail.
      The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) was right in saying that a foreign element has been injected into the Bill. The provisions in this part of the Bill should never have been inserted. They might have been introduced in a social security Bill, although we would
      1216
      have preferred that they were never introduced at all. Certainly this Bill is not the one in which to introduce them. These provisions are totally irrelevant to the Bill. But they are not irrelevant to Tory Party philosophy and thinking.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right in saying that this is part of the Tory class strategy. Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads, but I can tell them that the Government have done similar things in the past few months. In social security they have brought in a Bill abolishing the three waiting days, which means that millions of workers will be adversely affected. They have brought in a provision that workers on short time will not receive unemployment benefit for the first six days that they are on short time. [Interruption.] Apparently hon. Members opposite are not aware of what their Government are doing. The Government have reduced the benefits not to strikers but to the wives and families of strikers, and to workers thrown out of work as a result of strikes.
      This Amendment is in line with the whole of Tory philosophy and thinking about workers and social security. It is right that my hon. Friend should refer to this as a despicable, vicious and mean Measure.
      We have been told that all sorts of abuses have been practised. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) was a little schizophrenic about it. He said that there were all sorts of abuses and that it was a growing problem, but a few seconds later he said that not many people were involved. It may be a case of tossing a penny to see what happens, but he cannot have it both ways. Either there is a great abuse, or not many people are involved.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to it as "a problem", but he gave no facts. He did not even go as far as his hon. Friends went in the other place. They, at least, argued that there was some abuse and put forward some points, but the right hon. Gentleman merely said, in passing, "There is abuse." He should let us know what abuse there is. He should let us have some figures. He should tell us how much money is involved, and what industries are involved. He should tell us how many workers have been involved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover answered the point made in respect of the mining industry. The mining industry has been referred to, and I should like to know what other industries are involved. It conjures up a vision of workers, immediately they are told they are redundant, dashing round to the nearest doctor and saying that they are ill in order to get this extra bit of money. Do hon. Members opposite really think that that is how workers act? They know that it is not true.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked the question which is inevitably raised by the Government's attitude: who are the doctors who give certificates in these circumstances? Apparently, when the worker rushes to the doctor's door, he is welcomed with open arms and immediately given a certificate. I do not know any such doctors. I see the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford raises his eyebrows at that. If he knows that there are such doctors, it is his responsibility to do something about it. It should be dealt with in that way, with the doctor concerned.
      I have a doctor friend in Liverpool, a member of my party, who has told me that when the occasional worker has come to him trying to swing the lead, he has never given him a certificate. I am sure that that is the position of most doctors in this country, and anyone who suggests otherwise does not understand the profession. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a slander on the medical profession."] Yes, and although hon. Members opposite make that slander on the profession, they say at other times that we should give doctors the highest possible pay, and then, when we do not do that in certain circumstances, they complain. One cannot have it both ways.
      Mrs. Tom King: That was a very unfair crack which came from one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who. incidentally, was not here earlier. We have already dealt with that point, and it has been admitted by both sides, I think, that there is in no sense a slander on the medical profession here. It is merely a recognition of the difficult situation in which doctors are put in this sort of case.
      Mrs. Heffer: If it is not a slander on the medical profession, I do not know what is it. But it is up to hon.
      1218
      Members opposite, not us, to argue about that with the medical profession. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The doctors are accused of incompetence."] Are they saying that doctors are incompetent?
      Mrs. Tom King: That is not true, either, and the hon. Gentleman who said that was not here earlier.
      Mrs. Heffer: It is not up to us to answer that charge against the doctors. Hon. Members opposite must answer it, because it is they who have raised the question.
      What about the amounts involved? We have not been given the numbers, but we have been told that there are some workers who, in certain circumstances, when they are declared redundant and they are to receive their guaranteed payments under the Act, go off sick so that they can have additional money. One would imagine that we were talking of thousands of £s. In fact, even if there were this terrible abuse, it amounts to only £10 or £15.
      10.15 p.m.
      We are not talking about vast sums of money, but we are talking about workers who are suffering a double disability. On the one hand, they have been told by their employers that they are now redundant; they are on statutory notice, and they go sick so that they are not in a position to seek other employment during that period. They have that double disability. Up to now, we have ensured proper treatment for such workers. When the Bill was first introduced, this question was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury at that time, and the reply was given from his own Front Bench. It was a safeguard for the worker.
      It is not a safeguard to the worker now. It is apparently an abuse under those circumstances, but it was not an abuse then. Why is it an abuse now? The reason is that it is in line with the Government's policy of attacking the industrial worker at every possible level, whether under the Bill or the legislation on social security benefits, as part of their class attitude and philosophy.
      Hon. Members opposite do not like this sort of argument; they do not like an argument which is realistic and true. They like to mask their statements behind an apparent benevolence that is not real.

      1219
      When they are unmasked, as they are now and have been so often, they become very angry. We must also have an answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West about wage-related benefits not being paid until after 12 days.
      It has been made absolutely clear that the people who benefit are the employers and that one employer, a State employer, made representations to the Government. What other employers have made representations to them? When were the trade unions brought into discussions on the question? We know that the T.U.C. has rejected out of hand the proposals on the three waiting days and the short-term benefits, and they have been imposed on the trade union movement despite the T.U.C. 's opposition.
      In his first-class speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster was right to say that when a worker loses his job it is a terrible blow to him and his family. It creates a great deal of distress in the family and is not to be accepted lightly, particularly when there are over 800,000 unemployed and there are growing numbers of unemployed in certain parts of the country, like Scotland. It is a devastating blow when a worker receives his notice from his employer, yet at that very moment there is to be a further imposition on him if he should become sick or suffer an industrial injury—it is a question of industrial injury as well as sickness. What happens, for example, if the worker receives a lump sum as a result of his industrial injury? Will that be taken out of his benefit?
      Whenever the working people of this country make an advance, whenever they begin to live decently, whenever a Labour Government, or even a Conservative Government, introduce legislation which puts the worker in a rather better position and gives him greater security, the worker feels that much more secure. But the Government are taking that security away from him. They have decided that the workers have too much. The balance as the Prime Minister told the 1922 Committee—if the report were not accurate, he had better write to the Daily Telegraph about it—has been tipped against the trade unions in the interests of the em-
      1220
      ployers. We are not prepared to go along with that and intend to vote against the Amendment.
      Mr. R. Carr: By leave of the House, perhaps it would be helpful if I tried to reply to some of the points which have been made.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked about the first group of Amendments dealing with the availability of the statement of change, about what is "reasonably accessible", and so forth. We intend that exactly the same conditions shall apply there as apply already when there are any changes, and as are set out in the well-known leaflet explaining the Contracts of Employment Act for the guidance of employers and employees. So far as we know, that has met the needs of and has satisfied the trade unions and others in the past, and we therefore see no reason why it should not do so in the future. I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me from reading out a great many paragraphs from the leaflet, but I assure him that that is what we are going to do with this new provision. It has been found satisfactory by trade unions and employees hitherto and I am sure that it will be satisfactory in future.
      Amendment No. 301 has given rise to the major controversy in the debate. I have been asked why this provision should be in the Bill at all. I have been accused of introducing it surreptitiously in the early hours of the morning in another place. Tied in with this is the question of what views have been expressed by the trade unions about it.
      The provision was not introduced surreptitiously in another place. The original paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, under the heading
      "Sickness or injury during period of notice"
      was in the original print of the Bill last December. We have made the Amendment not because our intention was changed or hidden but because it became clear that the original paragraph 8 did not achieve the intention. There was nothing surreptitious about it. It was not introduced in the middle of the night in another place. The proposal was already in the Bill. No representations were received from the unions about it after the first print of the Bill.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: But if the paragraph did not achieve what the Government intended, why should the unions have supposed that this was the Government's intention?
      Mr. Carr: There is no doubt that the intention was clear. I do not believe that the unions had a look at the intention and said, "Ha, ha. We can see that the Government have not been clever enough and are not going to achieve their intention, so we shall say nothing about it." It is conceivable but it is unlike the trade unions or any other bodies in the country which normally make representations to the Government about legislation. The proposal was clear in the Bill as drafted.
      Why are we doing this in the Industrial Relations Bill? That is a fundamental question. We are doing it here for a reason small in terms of space but important in terms of events—we are amending the Contracts of Employment Act in order to make its provisions more generous to employees and workers in their terms and conditions of employment. We have not just brought in this "little thing" as a side issue. It is part and parcel of the change which we are making and it fits perfectly naturally into the Bill.
      Why should the change be made? Why is what was right in 1963 not right in 1971? The reason is that conditions have changed enormously. In 1963, when the Contracts of Employment Act was introduced, national insurance sickness benefits were flat-rate benefits at about £2 a week and employers' sick pay schemes, where they existed, did not commonly provide for the offset of sickness benefit received from the National Insurance Fund, and in general they provided flat-rate sickness pay.
      The situation has been changed by the scale of benefits and the fact that they are earnings related. The scale of the problem is now entirely different and it does not at all follow that what was right in 1963 is right in 1971.
      Many hon. Members have spoken as though we were doing something to the national insurance benefits entitlements. We are doing nothing of the kind. What we are doing is amending the Contracts of Employment Act.
      Mr. Skinner: It is the same thing.
      Mr. Carr: It is not the same thing. We are not altering a worker's entitlement to his national insurance earnings-related benefits, or any other form of benefit.
      Mr. Skinner: It is putting money in the employers' pockets.
      Mr. Carr: That is not the case at all. The object of sickness pay schemes as voluntarily introduced by employers on their own initiative, or as a result of collective bargaining with their unions, is to ensure to workers their full normal earnings while they are away from work through sickness or injury. It is to make up full pay while they are away from work. We want to encourage not only employers who do that already, but employers who do not, to do so in future.
      It is not much encouragement to employers who do this already, or employers who may and, we hope, will do so in future to say that when their workers happen to be sick or injured in these very special circumstances they should have to do much more than make up their full pay. It is surely reasonable that an employer agrees to make up to full pay. That is what he entered into and that, by the provisions in the 1963 Act, when conditions were entirely different, is what he ought to do. We think that it is wrong that the anomaly should exist in these cases.
      Mr. Orme: By "full pay" does the right hon. Gentleman mean the basic rate, or total earnings when a worker has payment by results?
      Mr. Carr: I was about to mention that. The Notes for Guidance on the contracts of Employment Act deal with this. Provision is made for people on piece work, for example. Speaking from memory, I think that it is the average of the previous four weeks' earnings. Where it is flat-rate pay in no way related to a production bonus, the flat rate is paid. When it is pay based largely on piece work of one kind or another, the guaranteed pay under the Contracts of Employment Act is, I think, the average of the previous four weeks' earnings.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Skinner: Most of the people affected by this Amendment are those who have been in, say, the coal mining industry for 64 years 11 months and who, because closure has been pending for some time,

      1223
      have been on a low rate of pay for a long time. The same thing applies most probably to the U.C.S. workers. Their rates of pay when the contracts of employment provision takes effect will be much less at that time than they have been over the last two or three years. That is the answer.
      Mr. Carr: If there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, it affects the whole situation, injury or not. All we are saying is that it does not seem right to us that because a man or woman falls sick at one time under one particular set of circumstances he or she should get what may be up to 185 per cent. of the normal pay which fellow workers get who do not fall sick. This does not normally happen and we do not believe that it is an anomaly which can be justified here. That is all that there is to it.
      The question of abuse has been raised—whether this is an attack on the competence of doctors and so forth. This is a piece of chop logic. We all know the difficulties which doctors must face with large numbers of claims for certificates. We all know that on a first application doctors must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and we would wish them to do so. We would not wish to encourage doctors to do otherwise. We hear so often about this "pain in the back", and so on. How does a doctor measure pain in the back? It may be nothing and it may be acute. The doctor cannot tell. What is more, a pain of that kind might arise from some minor cause from which no harm would result from going on with normal work, or it could arise from a very serious cause. No doctor, faced with a claim of that sort, can just turn a man down and he certainly would not begin to query the case until there was some evidence which gave him positive reason to think that a man might be malingering.
      I was asked what evidence we had about possible abuse or suggestions of abuse. As is well known, some evidence came from the National Coal Board. I could not help thinking, when I listened to some speeches from hon. Members opposite, that they found this a nice peg on which to hang an attack on the Board in general and Lord Robens in particular, who has not been their favourite man for a long time now.
      Mr. Skinner: He has never been mine.
      Mr. Carr: That, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, is a mutual state of affairs. When hon. Members make this sort of attack on the Board they ought to remember the record of the Board in handling deployment and the difficult matter of pit closures—which some hon. Members never believed in but which successive Governments, including the Government formed by the Labour Party, believed were helpful and necessary. Before attacks of this kind are made on Lord Robens and his colleagues some account should be taken of their record and the way in which they tackled this difficult redevelopment problem.
      That is not the only source of evidence. We have had representations from individual companies and from the C.B.I. It is also true to say that we have had some detailed evidence from the N.C.B., and I will mention some of it.
      A survey was made of the closure of II collieries in the South Durham area. It showed that during the statutory notice period, absenteeism rose considerably. In four of the 11 cases, the rate of absenteeism rose by 50 per cent. or more above the previous level and in the other seven cases, the rate rose to between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the labour force, which was far more than had been the rate right up to the moment of the redundancy notices being issued. They were absent—
      Mr. Skinner: With medical certificates.
      Mr. Carr: I am quoting details from a document—
      Mr. Skinner: May I see the document?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that he must not keep making sedentary interventions. The Minister has shown his readiness to give way. The hon. Member must observe the rules of the House.
      Mr. Skinner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the survey from which he is quoting was in respect of voluntary or involuntary absenteeism? If not, he cannot prove his case.
      Mr. Carr: I am simply saying that sickness pay cases—cases supported by

      1225
      doctors' certificates—rose dramatically immediately after the notice period came into effect. The question whether some men may be getting more than some of the more conscientious ones is a point that must obviously be considered, but it is not the main point. The fact remains that when a large undertaking such as the N.C.B., faced with the very difficult and unpleasant task of having to close down a pit or factory, tries to do so with full consideration, with full notice, and with humanity, that task is made much more difficulty if there are abnormally high rates of absenteeism and sickness. The humane carrying out of a rundown operation is made more difficult to administer efficiently in that event, and I believe that the generosity of the N.C.B. and its humanity—
      Mrs. Skinner: Generosity in sacking people?
      Mrs. Carr: If hon. Gentlemen opposite will reflect carefully and calmly on what I am saying, they will see that there is something in it.
      Mrs. Skinner: What is generous in sacking people?
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Bolsover asks whether it is generous to sack people. Of course it is not, but if an industry is being run down, whatever the reasons—and the Labour Government recognised that it was unavoidable; that mines had to be closed and that the scale of operations had to be reduced in terms of the number of pits—then, while sacking people cannot be regarded as an act of generosity, it should be done as well, as gradually, as humanely and as efficiently as possible, not just for the national economy but for the welfare of the people in the industry.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has several times referred to people being away on doctors' certificates in terms of absenteeism. He will recall that in my remarks I acknowledged that abuse might exist and pointed out that in the coal mining industry more than in any other there may be, because of the hazards of working in the mines, thousands of men dragging themselves to work rather than putting their jobs at risk. However, these men, who should ordinarily be at home and probably in bed, feel, when redundancy notices are
      1226
      issued, that they might as well give in and accept their illnesses rather than drag themselves to work.
      Mr. Carr: I apologise if I am using "absenteeism" wrongly. The whole debate is taking place in the context of the offsets of sickness and injury benefits, and I am talking in that context. The hon. Member must remember that all we are proposing by this Amendment is that these people shall continue to go on drawing their full pay. At the moment some of them are drawing very much more than their full pay, and this is an anomaly which is not calculated to encourage the development of good voluntary sick pay schemes in industry. It is not what these employers contracted with the trade unions to do when they made these agreements.
      The employers were saying—and surely we should honour them for this and encourage them to do so—that they would enter into a scheme whereby they would make payments to their employees to bring their pay during sickness or injury up to full pay. They did not contemplate payments to bring the weekly income of their employees up to much more than full pay. That never was their intention, and I do not believe that any hon. Member ever thought it was. This anomaly has been discovered, we believe it is right to remove it, and that is the end-all and be-all of it.
      Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) pointed out that many workers earn well above the basic rate, but pay was usually made up to the basic rate. Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to that point?
      Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Member is misunderstanding me. I know it is complicated, but we are saying that in the normal sick pay scheme the employer undertakes to make up the pay to an agreed amount, which no doubt varies from company to company and according to the nature of the scheme and agreement. Under the Contracts of Employment Act the employer has a statutory duty to guarantee during a minimum period up up to levels defined in the Act which, when they are not factory rates, are levels based on average earnings over a previous period. We are

      1227
      not in any way trying to relieve the employer of his statutory duty to pay a man or woman under notice for the minimum period laid down the amount necessary, but we are saying that he should not be asked to pay more than is required to bring the employee's earnings up to the level which the Contracts of Employment Act lays down under normal circumstances if a man is not ill or injured. I do not believe that that is a Draconian or cruel thing to do.
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he believes it right that the employer should make up a man's wages when he is sick but should not pay more? Does he not appreciate that his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services has imposed a burden on employers in that there is now to be no payment for the three waiting days? If a man is to have his full wages during sickness the employer will have to pay for the three waiting days benefit which the Government have now withdrawn.
      Mr. Carr: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in this Amendment which will relieve the employer of any duty, obligation or undertaking of that kind. All we are relieving him of is the duty to make payments if the total payment is above the man's normal earnings. Unless or until the employee is away sick the employer is under no duty so to do, but it is absolutely right to protect the man's full earnings, and it was never intended that more than that should be done.
      10.45 p.m.
      I was asked a few specific questions. The hon. Member for Doncastar said that, despite the use of the word "shall", there was nothing in the Amendment to prevent an employer of his own free will on his own initiative or by agreement with the unions doing more than is laid down. There is nothing to prevent him. We have no intention to extend the scheme, as the hon. Member put it. One reason is that it would force workers to give information to their employers on how much they received in social insurance benefits in conditions in which they had not previously agreed to to do. We believe that that would be wrong.
      In the arrangement under the voluntary sick pay scheme they have, in the terms
      1228
      of agreement, agreed to do just that; but in other cases they have not, and it would be wrong to make them do so. We see no purpose in benefiting the employer who has not been making voluntary payments under a sick pay scheme to his workers in the normal way.
      The hon. Member also asked what would happen to a worker who decided to contract out of the sick pay scheme on receiving notice of redundancy. If a worker under notice wanted to contract out of the employer's sick pay scheme, he would be seeking to vary the terms of his contract. If the employer did not agree to such a variation, the employee could seek to relieve himself of his condition by terminating his contract. But if he did, it would not be dismissal, but he would be sacking himself and the guarantee under Schedule 2 of the Contracts of Employment Act would not arise. Therefore, I do not think there is anything in that or that there is any cause to fear.
      The right hon. Member for Newton asked what would happen if the employer's scheme were contributory. The answer is that this Amendment refers only to moneys paid by the employer. I am advised that any genuine insurance scheme to which the employee and employer had jointly contracted would not fall to be dealt with under the Amendment.
      I accept that some of the matters which have been raised in this debate are genuine points, but I ask the House to accept the situation and to realise that this is being done in the context of the Contracts of Employment Act and substantially improves the security of employees and the help given to them when, alas, they are faced with the problem of redundancy. At present, an employee has no statutory right to minimum notice until he has been in a job for 26 weeks. That has been cut down to 13 weeks. When we get to longer-service employees, the Amendments extend the minimum time for people who have been in a job for between 10 and 25 years from four weeks' notice to six weeks' notice. For those who have been in a job for 15 years and upwards, the statutory notice will go up from four to eight weeks.
      The Amendment we are seeking to make to the Contracts of Employment Act will greatly improve the benefits and the security.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments:—
      The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 234.

      Division No. 452.]

      AYES

      10. 49 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McLaren, Martin

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Foster, Sir John

      McMaster, Stanley

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Fowler, Norman

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Awdry, Daniel

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

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fry, Peter

      Maddan, Martin

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Madel, David

      Balniel, Lord

      Gardner, Edward

      Maginnis, John E.

      Barber, Rt Hn. Anthony

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Marten, Neil

      Batsford, Brian

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mather, Carol

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maude, Angus

      Bell, Ronald

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Benyon, W.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Biffen, John

      Gorst, John

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

      Biggs-Oavison, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Blaker, Peter

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Moate, Roger

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Gray, Hamish

      Molyneaux, James

      Body, Richard

      Green, Alan

      Money, Ernle

      Boscawen, Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Monro, Hector

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gurden, Harold

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Boyd-Corpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      More, Jasper

      Braine, Bernard

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Bray, Ronald

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brewis, John

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Mudd, David

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Murton, Oscar

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neave, Airey

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Bryan, Paul

      Havers, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nott, John

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hicks, Robert

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Burden, F. A.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Carlisle, Mark

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

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Channon, Paul

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Peel, John

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hornby, Richard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Pounder, Rafton

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Clegg, Walter

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hunt, John

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Cooke, Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Coombs, Derek

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jesse), Toby

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Redmond, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Jopling, Michael

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Crouch, David

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Curran, Charles

      Kilfedder, James

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Dean, Paul

      Kirk, Peter

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Knox, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Drayson, C. B.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Lambton, Antony

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lane, David

      Rost, Peter

      Eden, Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott, Nicholas

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

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Emery, Peter

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

      Sharples, Richard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Longden, Gilbert

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

      Farr, John

      Loveridge, John

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fell, Anthony

      Luce, R. N.

      Simeons, Charles

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fidler, Michael

      MacArthur, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McCrindle, R. A.

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

      Soref, Harold

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Spence, John

      Tilney, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Sproat, lain

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Trew, Peter

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      van Straubenzee, w. R.

      Wilkinson, John

      Stokes, John

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Sutcliffe, John

      Waddington, David

      Worsley, Marcus

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Wall, Patrick

      Mr. Keith Speed and

      Tebbit, Norman

      Walters, Dennis

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Temple, John M.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      English, Michael

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Evans, Fred

      Lipton, Marcus

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Loughlin, Charles

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Foley, Maurice

      McBride, Neil

      Barnes, Michael

      Foot, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael

      Barnett, Joel

      Forrester, John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Beaney, Alan

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mackie, John

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Freeson, Reginald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bennet, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Garrett, W. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

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

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Marks, Kenneth

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Marquand, David

      Booth, Albert

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marsden, F.

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Bradley, Tom

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Meacher, Michael

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mendelson, John

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hardy, Peter

      Millan, Bruce

      Buchan, Norman

      Harper, Joseph

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Molloy, William

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Cant, R. B.

      Horam, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Moyle, Roland

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Malley, Brian

      Crawshaw, Richard

      lrvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Oram, Bert

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Janner, Greville

      Orme, Stanley

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oswald, Thomas

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

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

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Padley, Walter

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Paget, R. T.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Pardoe, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pendry, Tom

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pentland, Norman

      Delargy, H. J.

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

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Doig, Peter

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prescott, John

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kinnock, Neil

      Probert, Arthur

      Driberg, Tom

      Lambie, David

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Latham, Arthur

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lawson, George

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Eadie, Alex

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Richard, Ivor

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Leonard, Dick

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Ellis, Tom

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      1232

      1233

      Roper, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Watkins, David

      Rose, Paul B.

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Weitzman, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Taverns, Dick

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Shore, Rt. Hon. Peter (Stepney)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

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

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tomney, Frank

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Small, William

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Urwin, T. W.

      Woof, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Varley, Eric G.

      Stallard, A. w.

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Wallace, George

      Mr. John Golding and

      Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Mr. William Hamling.

      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 22

      FAIR AND UNFAIR DISMISSAL
      Lords Amendment: No. 48, in page 17, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert—
      "(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show—

      (a) what was the reason (or, if there was more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and

      (b) that it was a reason falling within the next following subsection, or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held.

      (1A) In subsection (1)(b) of this section the reference to a reason falling within this subsection is a reference to a reason which "
      11.0 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discuss Lords Amendments No. 49, in page 17. line 16, at end insert—
      "(1B) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, then, subject to sections 23 and 24 of this Act, the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this section "
      No. 50, in page 17, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 10 on page 18 and insert—
      "() Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances he acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and that question "
      No. 57, in Clause 31, page 23, line 38, leave out "good reason" and insert "reason fulfilling the requirements of section 22(1) of this Act"
      and No. 326, in Schedule 6, page 154, line 14, at end insert—
      ". Where in accordance with the regulations an industrial tribunal determines in the same proceedings—

      (a) a question referred to it under Part I of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and

      (b) a complaint presented under section 102 of this Act,

      1236
      section 9(2)(b) of that Act (whereby a dismissal is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been by reason of redundancy) shall not have effect for the purposes of the proceedings in so far as they relate to the complaint under section 102 of this Act."
      The purpose of these Amendments is, in response to observations made both in this House and in another place about the unfair dismissal provisions, to make plain where the burden of proof lies at each stage.
      Amendment No. 48 alters the first part of Clause 22(1) so as to make it plain that it is for the employer to show first what was the reason for the dismissal and, secondly, that the reason was one of those listed in the subsection as it stands or some other substantial reason relevant to the work which the dismissed employee was doing. The opportunity of showing some other substantial reason replaces the idea to the same effect which was in subsection (4) originally, save that it makes it plain that the reason has to be a substantial one and not simply a good one.
      Amendment No. 49 is one which makes a small change in the structure of the Clause but which has no new effect.
      Amendment No. 50 removes the original provisions in subsection (4) which were a rather lengthy way of showing some other good reason, and removes from the employee the burden of showing the unreasonableness of the employer's decision as to the weight and significance of the reason justifying the dismissal. Instead, Amendment No. 50 now leaves it for the tribunal to decide, once the employer has shown the reason for the dismissal, whether the employer's action in regarding that as a sufficient reason is reasonable.
      The Clause still maintains the employee's protection in subsection (2) regarding a dismissal on grounds of taking part in trade union activities and still preserves the express provision in subsection (3) for a man who is unfairly selected in a redundancy situation.
      Amendment No. 57 is a consequential one in Clause 31 because the idea of a good reason has been replaced by the more solid one of a substantial reason.
      Amendment No. 326 is one relating to the situation which may arise where a claim is brought before a tribunal

      1237
      alleging that the employee is entitled to compensation either on the ground of redundancy or on the ground of unfair dismissal. In that situation, it removes the presumption contained in the Redundancy Payments Act to the effect that the dismissal must be regarded as due to redundancy and leaves it to the tribunal to decide whether the claimant has shown that it was due to unfairness of dismissal or to redundancy as the alternative ground of his claim.
      The upshot of the provisions, included in response to a case strongly presented by the Opposition in another place, is to make plain where the burden of proof lies regarding unfair dismissals: that the employer is obliged to show that the dismissal was for one or other of the reasons set out in Clause 22(1) or some other substantial reason.
      The total effect of the provisions is plain and fair and in accordance with the Government's intention, which was made clear in response to representations by the Opposition both here and in another place.
      Mr. Rose: One thing of which I was certain on reading the Clause dealing with unfair dismissal—and I am convinced in my belief having listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman—was that these provisions displayed many curious lapses and ambiguities in drafting, to say nothing of certain matters of principle, such as the question of reinstatement rather than re-engagement, which we were unable to debate at an earlier stage. In many respects, the problems which the Solicitor-General has outlined might have been dealt with properly at an earlier stage if we had had the time in Committee and on Report to discuss unfair dismissal. Of those things which we were prevented from discussing, I felt that the question of unfair dismissal was the most important.
      I am not surprised that the Amendments which have come back from another place are partly in response to Amendments moved by some of my noble Friends. It is wholly unsatisfactory that problems as fundamental as the right to reinstatement and the burden of proof for unfair dismissal should not be debated first in this House, but in the other place. I acknowledge that this group
      1238
      of Amendments attempts in some measure to meet some of the points raised by my noble Friends in the other place.
      I assure the Solicitor-General that in raising a number of legal points and technicalities, it is not a question of hair splitting. There are many problems which disturb not only Members of this House, but members of the legal profession and the trade union movement.
      Amendment No. 48 places responsibility on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal and then to show that it falls within the subsection specifying the possible reasons. I am still unhappy about the drafting. What he should have to show under (a) is surely that there was justification under the subsection. I think that there is a misuse of the word "reason", as if it were synonymous with justification. This is an important point of drafting which has not yet been ventilated.
      I think that there is a genuine attempt here on the part of the Government to meet the Opposition on the question of the onus of proof; but the onus appears merely to be to show that there was a reason for the dismissal and that it was one of the specified reasons listed.
      I accept that Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 go some way towards meeting the problem of the onus of proof, but they do not wholly answer it because the employer has to show only sufficient reason, and reason is defined in subsection (1)(a). Surely what is required is for the employer not to have sufficient reason, but sufficient justification for dismissing the employee under the heading of one or other of the reasons specified. It is a vitally important distinction. I hope that the Solicitor-General will turn his mind to it.
      I can only hope that when an industrial tribunal has to deal with these matters it will treat the word "reason" in Amendment No. 50 as if it were the word "justification". I think that it would help towards that if today the Solicitor-General stated that this was the intention. That might assist tribunals in this difficult task.
      I wholly accept also that as a result of the original Clauses and the Amendments that follow, the Solicitor-General must insert Lords Amendment No. 326. Again, I regret that for the purposes of

      1239
      unfair dismissal, he has not adopted the same type of formula as was adopted in Section 9(2)(b) of the Redundancy Payments Act—in other words, placing the onus fairly and squarely on the employer by means of a presumption that has to be rebutted by the employer.
      I have had the pleasure, if that is what it may be called, of appearing before a number of industrial tribunals. In redundancy cases, the presumption of redundancy is a great help to the worker who is seeking compensation, because often the worker does not have exact and precise knowledge of the detailed operation of his employers. It does not in any way prejudice the fair and honest employer who can always rebut the presumption, but it is important to know where the presumption lies. A similar presumption in the case of unfair dismissal, in cases brought under that heading, would easily have placed the onus of proof fairly and squarely where it should lie—that is, upon the employer.
      I foresee difficulty in what I call the "either/or" case where there may be an unfair dismissal or there may be a redundancy. I know that the Solicitor-General has tried to deal with this problem in the Amendments. Again, however, the burden to be discharged is what matters and a rebuttable presumption would, to my mind, have been the most convenient way of dealing with this matter and would have brought about a far less complicated structure in the Bill. Redundancy would only be presumed where the employee took action under that heading and it would be a defence, if it was established, to an action for unfair dismissal. I therefore see no problem in that.
      In any event, subsection (3) shows that the problem of overlap may still exist concerning cases when there is a selection for dismissal, when there is a redundancy but the employer has to decide who will be made redundant. He may exercise that discretion fairly or unfairly. In subsection (3), the word "reason" is used in its correct sense; it is a reason rather than a justification. That reinforces the problem, to which I alluded earlier, of the manner in which the word "reason" is used in other
      1240
      parts of the Amendment where it means something entirely different.
      Clause 22(3) uses the words "it is shown". I am not clear, although I have read it carefully, whether Lords Amendment No. 48 will apply subsection (1) to subsection (3). It specifically refers to subsection (2). If I am given the Solicitor-General's assurance, I shall accept it, but I cannot see a reference to subsection (3). Subsection (1)(a) and (b) are applicable to subsection (2). There is no specific reference to their applicability or otherwise to subsection (3). I should like to have an explanation from the Solicitor-General about this.
      Another problem arises concerning the word "unreasonably" in Lords Amendment No. 50. We are all familiar with the problem of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable in law. It is a problem to which the courts have to turn their minds and with which we are familiar in, for example, the matter of reasonable care. It is a concept that we accept as routine in our legal system.
      11.15 p.m.
      But what is not reasonable is the fact that a case of dismissal might well present a problem of a very different order from the normal problem of what is reasonable and what is not, as it has to be dealt with from day to day in the courts. I say "of a different order", because we have to deal with problems such as reasonable conduct. Nothing in the Bill makes it clear whether reasonable conduct applies merely to conduct at the place of work and during the period of employment or conduct in a general sense, which may take it outside the sphere of employment.
      The subjective factors in industrial relations are such that what is reasonable to an employer and what is reasonable to an employee are very different things, and whereas the concept of what is reasonable may easily be applied by the courts to many other problems, it presents extreme difficulty in industrial relations, because of the relationship—and sometimes the antagonism—between employer and employee. A clear statement on the question of onus, again by means of a rebuttable presumption—showing justification rather than reasonableness—rather than using the concept of what is

      1241
      reasonable or unreasonable, would have avoided that problem.
      The fear is that we are dealing with conduct that may occur outside the employment. We have not been unmindful of the fact that there have been recent examples in education, where conduct outside the employment has been used as a pretext for the dismissal of persons employed in that sphere. This is a practical problem, which could be solved merely by the presumption that all cases of dismissal were cases of unfair dismissal unless the employer proved otherwise to the satisfaction of the tribunal.
      It would be outside the bounds of order to go into great detail on the Clause itself, but I want to deal with subsection (1)(a), which is extremely wide when linked to subsection (6) and this Amendment, together with Lords Amendment No. 50, which does nothing to help narrow the definition.
      I have dealt with a number of what might be termed technical or legalistic points. I am sure that some of my hon. and learned Friends—as well as those who have experience in the trade union movement—will have something to say about the practical problems of unfair dismissal; all that I say is that although the Amendments meet some of the objections raised in another place, if we had had time to discuss the matter in detail earlier all this difficulty could have been avoided. Suggestions could have come from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the question of onus, and the manner in which unfair dismissal should be dealt with, and a far more satisfactory conclusion could have been reached.
      We are left with a pretty tatty piece of drafting—a rather unsatisfactory position for the tribunals in interpreting the law. That is a direct result of the abuse by the Government at an earlier stage, when they imposed a guillotine and prevented the discussion of an important part of the Bill—a part that, unfortunately, we did not discuss in this House either in Committee or on Report.
      Mr. Greville Janner: I echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) about the importance of this part of the Bill, which, in my view, is likely to have, actually or poten-
      1242
      tially, quite as great an effect on most workers, at every level, as any others of its provisions. It is a disgrace that we have not had opportunity to consider it in detail up to now.
      At this stage, we can consider an Amendment which puts the burden of proof on the employer, but it is essential that we look at the realities of the situation and see how it is likely to work in practice. Although it will undoubtedly, and rightly, make it more difficult for an employer to dismiss, and an employer will have to be much more careful in so doing, it will in one sense put a premium on summary dismissal. Drafted as it is, it will, in my view, encourage employers to dismiss without notice.
      At present, it is possible to dismiss anyone at any time by giving notice or pay instead, and an employer who dismisses workers summarily cannot be forced to pay them any more by way of damages than they would have received had they been dismissed with proper notice. When the Clause, as amended, comes into force, the employer who dismisses fairly will be in the same position as today, but an employer who dismisses unfairly may have to pay damages or compensation up to £4,160.
      A major employer may be pleased to pay £4,000 to be rid of a trouble-maker for ever. If a shop steward is prepared to close down a business by his activities, if he has sufficient strength in his voice and power in his arm to control the workers in a factory in a way which the employer does not like, it may be well worth £4,000 to dismiss him, since such a sum may represent a few minutes' production time in a major works. So that must be carefully watched.
      For the small employer, a shop keeper or someone with a few employees, £4,000 is a great deal of money. He will take care how he dismisses a worker, but, none the less, he will have to be prepared to justify that dismissal, if necessary, according to the rules laid down in the amended Clause. How will he do it? In practice, if he wishes to avoid the possibility of paying over £4,000, he will have to show that the dismissal related to the capability or qualifications of the employee, to the conduct of the employee, that the employee was redundant, or that he could not continue to work in the position without creating an illegality. In my

      1243
      opinion, it is likely that conduct will be the ground most relied on.
      If an employer wishes to rely on conduct, he will now have to show not only that the reason was the conduct of the employee but, quite rightly, that he acted reasonably in the circumstances in treating that conduct, or misconduct, as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee.
      Let us assume that an employer has it in mind to dismiss an employee. He knows that, if he dismisses him unfairly, he will be liable to pay over £4,000. Incidentally, the personnel managers and others whose business it is to hire and fire may themselves lose their jobs if they dismiss too many people unfairly; and that in itself is quite fair. But how are they to handle this situation? If they wish to avoid paying over £4,000, they will have to show before a tribunal that the dismissal was fair. To show that it was fair they will have to prove that they reasonably relied upon the conduct. Nowadays there are many cases where an employer gives an employee who is a borderline case for summary dismissal his pay in lieu of notice and a reference, and the man leaves with something.
      I fear that under the new amended Clause the employer will be tempted to dismiss a man summarily for various reasons. First, if he has to face an attempt by the employee to obtain compensation he will be able to show that he was dismissed because of his conduct, and it will be easier to show that he acted reasonably if he can point to a summary dismissal rather than a dismissal with notice or with pay or a reference. In other words, he will doubtless show the tribunal that he relied upon misconduct and acted in a manner which was consistent with serious misconduct, which is what I suspect the tribunals will expect an employer to show I hope that the Solicitor-General will say what sort of burden of proof in conduct cases he would expect the tribunal to accept in regard to substantial reasons, a substantial reason being more than a good reason, as he has put it. What is a substantial reason? Is a substantial reason in the case of conduct likely to be the same sort of reason as would nowadays amount to sufficient reason for summary dismissal—serious misconduct rather than ordinary, mild misconduct? There is that first, main risk.
      1244
      Second, an employee is always at a disadvantage when he is dismissed. This problem goes right up to the most senior employees. When a man is dismissed he needs the money which he could get if he were to settle his claim. Unlike the company, in general, he cannot do without the money which is being withheld. If the man is summarily dismissed, by definition he does not have the money he would otherwise receive if he were shown out of the door with his notice or his pay in lieu. Therefore, he is more likely to settle the case before it reaches the tribunal. At this stage we have the problem of the queue outside the tribunal created by this legislation. Clause 153 specifically forbids the contracting out of a man's rights under the Bill. It prevents a person from giving up his right to present a case to the tribunal. But the conciliation officers will have the job of trying to encourage people to settle cases before they reach the tribunal. Is it the Solicitor-General's view that it will be possible to settle a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal under Clause 22 as amended without the intervention of the conciliation officer, or will that amount to a contracting out? As I read the Bill, it will, which means that the hon. and learned Gentleman had better set about appointing many hundreds of conciliation officers. How many conciliation officers does he propose to appoint, and when?
      A man who says that he has been unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation will take his place in the queue on the way to the tribunal. He will know that he is faced with delay. The extent of the delay will depend upon the number of tribunals and the speed at which they work. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many tribunals it is proposed to appoint and when?
      11.30 p.m.
      If the queue is as great as I expect it to be, those who are summarily dismissed, or those who are dismissed with notice but unfairly dismissed, will have a long wait and are then going to be prepared to settle their cases. They will be faced with summary dismissal and the burden of proving the allegation that the dismissal was fair will rest on the employer. But it will be a burden which the employee may fear will be discharged. The nature and the extent of

      1245
      the fear will depend to some extent on documentation which will come before the tribunal. When there is an attempt to dismiss a man, when it is known that a man is to be got rid of, it is simple to prepare the way for the dismissal. In general this is done, particularly in the case of those employed above shop floor level, by the preparation of documented complaints. I recollect that there is to be legal aid before the tribunals in connection with unfair dismissal cases, and I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm that.
      Assuming that all these matters are overcome, we then have the unfortunate dismissed employee in a much less happy-position than a quick reading of this Clause might suggest. On the face of it, his position will be greatly improved; in practice I fear that there are subtleties within the Clause which may lead not only to difficulties for the tribunals and for those who have to state whether the tribunals have come to their decisions on a correct understanding of the law, but also difficulties for the employees themselves.
      One of the grounds upon which it will be possible to show fair dismissal will be that the man was dismissed as redundant. In this case it would, of course, prevent a man from obtaining two sets of payment—a redundancy payment and a payment of compensation. One can dismiss a man unfairly if he is redundant but he will get his redundancy pay; conversely, the other method would apply. The danger here is that redundancy pay comes 50 per cent. out of the Exchequer and there will be a temptation to an employer where possible to make his payment 50 per cent. out of the redundancy fund. I trust that the Department of Employment will keep a careful eye on this sort of manoeuvre.
      As in the case of redundancy payments, so in the case of compensation for unfair dismissal: a man will get neither until he has been employed for two years, and wherever the onus of proof is placed, this is a fact which no doubt will weigh heavily with employers. They know, and it is right for them to know, that it is for them to show reason for the dismissal; but equally they will know that this protection applies only for people who have been employed for two years or more. I should like to know why they should have
      1246
      to wait two years for the protection to apply. Is it not likely that before that time arrives, and in particular during the last two months of the two-year period, there is going to be a temptation to dismiss before risk of unfair dismissal arises under this Clause?
      In many ways, this Clause will do a great deal of good but on the other hand we should bear in mind that there are dangers inherent in it, and it is a great pity that we should have to debate it at this late hour and at this stage in this enormously lengthy procedure.
      Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that some changes are to be made to the Bill, for I wish it to be as fair as possible to both employers and employees and it is important that employers should have to justify dismissals. I like to be a straightforward individual and to give instances to demonstrate my argument. I spent the weekend in my own part of the world and while I was there some employees put to me an example of what they regarded as unfair dismissal. I assume that if these provisions had been law, the employers concerned would have had to justify those dismissals.
      At this moment, I am firmly on the side of the employees in this matter and perhaps for once the Opposition will be inclined to support me on that account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful!"] It is not at all disgraceful. I believe that I am being absolutely straightforward. I want employers to be fair when employees are dismissed.
      On Tyneside there is the firm of C. A. Parsons which for some weeks has been persuading some of its employees, already members of one union, to join another, and it has been putting pressure on them to do so. This attempt to force trade unionists to join a union chosen by the employer has caused grave anxiety over the past few weeks. About seven days ago, the employers issued notices to the employees concerned saying that if they did not join the union of the employers' choice they would be dismissed, although those employees were fully paid up and responsible members of another trade union. If it were brought before a tribunal, this would be an interesting case because the employers would have to justify the dismissal of men

      1247
      who had committed no offence except that of wishing to remain members of the union to which they have belonged for many years.
      Over the weekend, many of these workers came to see me, and I told them that if the opportunity arose—and I am glad that it has arisen—I would put on record, before the House of Commons, their objections to their employers' actions. If it is possible, under the Bill, for aggrieved trade unionists to complain to the tribunal about their employers' actions, nothing will give me greater pleasure, because in this case the employers are treating their employees extremely badly. I know that when the Bill is passed employers will be prevented from behaving in that way, but some employers are so clever in their support of the trade unions which they select—which are certainly not the trade unions which I would select—that they have issued notices to some of their employees before the Bill can be placed on the Statute Book.
      I promised the trade unionists who approached me, as their Member of Parliament, that I would bring the action of their employers before the House. Those employers are dismissing men who have committed no offence other than to wish to remain members of the trade union which has faithfully served the industrial establishment over many years. C. A. Parsons want D.A.T.A. as their negotiating body and the professional engineers, who belong to U.K.A.P.E.—as they have every right to belong to U.K.A.P.E.—are objecting.
      We have heavy unemployment on Tyneside, but these employers are throwing these men out of work and adding to the unemployment—simply because the employers want to choose the trade union and not to allow their long-serving workers to remain attached to their own union. I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure me that there is no justification for employers to behave in this way. I take great exception to their action and I stand up for the trade unionists who are members of U.K.A.P.E.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mrs. Neil McBride: As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said, the question of unfair dismissal, if proved, is a very
      1248
      serious thing. Even if damages are awarded there is the question of reinstatement. It may be that a craftsman likes to follow his trade at a particular factory, or likes a certain firm because it is near his home or for some other good reason. The Government should tackle the important question of who has responsibility for this. There should be a provision for reinstatement in the event of unfair dismissal.
      Dismissal depends on whether an employer in the circumstances, in the words of the Amendment, acted "reasonably or unreasonably" in dismissing an employee. This gives an employer great scope and will result in many and varied legal interpretations of these words.
      Unfair dismissal can be the most disruptive thing in industrial relations and here I have an advantage over the Solicitor-General because I spent 25 years in the great shipyard we were discussing earlier in the debate about U.C.S. It is not the ostensible reason for dismissal that can cause the trouble, it is the nagging pin-pricks than can lead to the dismissal.
      The fact that insufficient time has been allocated to this Bill means that it is a hotch-potch. Anyone who has worked in industry knows that and, speaking as a former shop steward—a much maligned race—may I remind the Solicitor-General that while industry marches on its generals it can never carry out its work without the "non-coms". I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought about the legal costs which will be added to industry's bill as a result of this Measure. Summary dismissal will become the order of the day, the new method of evading the provisions of the Clause. Paving the way for unfair dismissal in this way is most important. I speak as a non-lawyer, but in this House I have heard lawyers interpret Clauses in a Bill and in no case have their opinions been coincidental. This will rupture and bedevil, rather than help, industrial relations.
      One must understand the position before one can help to create good industrial relations, and, as one who has lived and worked with workpeople, I assure the Minister that the Amendment, lacking a provision for reinstatement in the way I have described, and the Bill, lacking a sense of humanity, shows that

      1249
      the Government are singularly devoid of the understanding that is necessary to deal with the whole issue of industrial relations.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) made an important contribution to the debate when he emphasised the wide importance of this provision. I was disappointed that he closed by concentrating on a critical note, suggesting that in the absence of a provision for reinstatement, this part of the Measure was of no value.
      Mr. McBride: I did not use the words "of no value", though I may have an opinion about that. I thought it logical that a provision for reinstatement should be included.
      The Solicitor-General: I apologise if I overstated the hon. Gentleman's criticism.
      The question whether reinstatement should be in the Bill has been debated extensively both in this House and in another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has been canvassed in one speech after another at various stages of the Bill.
      Mr. Rose Mr. Rose rose—
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) will remember that it was last canvassed on 16th March in debating several Amendments. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT with me.
      Mr. Rose: No.
      Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to clear this up?
      The Solicitor-General: This topic was certainly referred to frequently.
      Mr. Heffer: I want it clearly on the record that this whole question of unfair dismissals was never debated in this House. It may be true to say that hon. Members obliquely referred to it and tried to discuss it when speaking to other Amendments, but the guillotine prevented us from debating the matter in depth.
      The Solicitor-General: I agree that we did not reach this set of Clauses in our discussion in the House—[Interruption.]—but the House must acknowledge that the amount of repetitious discussion of
      1250
      earlier Clauses was the large factor in our lack of progress towards these Clauses. There would have been ample time for us to have discussed these and many other Clauses in the time available, and it is significant that the Bill was discussed from end to end twice in another place, where these Clauses were examined.
      Notwithstanding that, the issues with which we are now dealing, reinstatement or not, have been raised many times in our debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were raised on Second Reading and in the debate on the Consultative Document. Anyone who has paid a moment's notice to our debates, if they have noticed anything, will have noticed the argument about reinstatement.
      In this Bill provision is made for increasing awards of compensation under Clause 102(4) if a recommendation for reinstatement is made and disregarded. Although under the Bill introduced by the Labour Government there were provisions for reinstatement to be ordered, if those orders were not complied with, the only remedy was an increase of compensation by a scale not exceeding 50 per cent. of the total compensation otherwise awardable.
      Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman must realise how unfair he is being, trying to exonerate the Government on the reinstatement issue on the basis of a narrow Amendment rather than in the context of the Bill, when it is out of order for us to widen the discussion, apart from the fact that it is five minutes to midnight. I challenge his easy generalisations about the similarity between the two Measures and deeply regret that we did not have a chance to examine that part of his Bill dealing with reinstatement.
      The Solicitor-General: I decline to accept the matter in that form. Time after time after time in this House we have drawn the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the provisions for reinstatement in the right hon. Lady's Bill did not and could not go as far as securing reinstatement. Of course, the Bill had not—
      Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. As the Solicitor-General is now giving the text of an entirely different Clause which has nothing to do with the Amendment

      1251
      under discussion, shall we have an opporunity tomorrow to discuss the reinstatement Clauses which are not now before us and which were not discussed in Committee?
      Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has asked me a hypothetical question. I shall have to see how the discussion goes.
      The Solicitor-General: If the right hon. Lady does not wish me to continue the comparison on the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East I will not do so. The point has been included on the record many times.
      I will pass, instead, to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East of the importance of these recommendations. Exactly the same point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) in an extremely thoughtful speech. This was the first occasion on which tribute has been paid and acknowledgement given to the Government for the great importance they attach to the unfair dismissal provisions in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member said—and this was echoed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East—that the provisions relating to unfair dismissal were likely to be, as my right hon. Friend has stated many times, one of the most important sections of the Bill, dealing with the position of individual workers. It is encouraging to have this on the record.
      Mr. McBride: The right hon and learned Gentleman is perhaps inadvertently, misleading the House. I was referring to the terms "reasonable" or "unreasonable", which is a different matter.
      The Solicitor-General: I will come to discuss "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in a moment, pointing out that the formulation by reference to reasonableness and unreasonableness follows closely the words used in the right hon. Member's Bill. I am making no partisan point
      1252
      about that, because it is impossible to deal with unfairness or fairness of dismissal save by using such words as "reasonable" or "unreasonable". It is important that we should be satisfied that they are the best words for the purpose.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) raised, with characteristic skill, an important question from the point of view of her constituents about the effect of the Bill on the C. A. Parsons case. It would not be right for me to pronounce on the merits of a particular dispute, nor to say in general terms what is the justification or non-justification for the action she was discussing, but I can answer her question about the effect of the Bill on the situation she described.
      The Bill cannot affect the matters she discussed if any action takes place before the Bill comes into force. Once the Bill is in force, if an employer is threatening with dismissal an employee upon the grounds that he will not join the union of the employer's dictation, the employer would be dealing with the employee unfairly and would be open to action for unfair dismissal.
      The only exceptions to that situation are these. If the employer were dealing with a situation where an approved closed shop agreement had been established under the elaborate provisions of Schedule 1, it would not be unfair. The second exception is if there were an agency shop agreement the employer would not be entitled to dismiss the employee for belonging to a union of his choice, but would be entitled to do so if the employee was not paying agency shop contributions to an established agency. If it had been decided that the approved agency shop union was D.A.T.A., for example—
      It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to the Orders [25th January and 28th July].
      Debate to be resumed this day.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to.

  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    Clause 5
      CONTROL OF LARGE OVERNIGHT ASSEMBLIES IN THE OPEN
      Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6 leave out Clause 5 and insert New Clauses 5 and 5A as follows:—
    NEW CLAUSE 5

      CONTROL OF LARGE OVERNIGHT ASSEMBLIES IN THE OPEN
      5.—(1) Any person intending to hold an assembly to which this section applies and the occupier of any land intending to permit that land to be used as the site of such an assembly, or, if it is land adjacent to the proposed site of such an assembly, for purposes of that assembly shall give to the Council not less than four months' notice of his intention to do so.

      (2) Within one month of the receipt of any such notice or of the information under subsection (4) of this section or in default of the receipt of such information within the period specified in subsection (4) of this section the Council may, after consultation with such local authorities and such statutory or other authorities as the Council think fit serve a counter-notice on the person giving such notice or information, or, as the case may be, the person required under subsection (4) of this section to give such information requiring him to comply with such reasonable terms or conditions as they think fit with respect to water supply and securing sanitary conditions, public order and public safety and for the prevention of actionable nuisance:

      Provided that no term or condition relating to public order shall be imposed without the consent of the Chief Constable of the police authority

      (3) Any notice given under subsection (I) of this section shall state the purpose and proposed date of commencement and duration of the assembly, the limits of the site to be occupied and the maximum number of persons which the person giving the notice expects to attend the assembly and the person giving the notice shall pay to the Council such amount in respect of any extra expense which may be incurred by any authority by reason of the assembly as the Council may reasonably require.

      (4) If the Council have reason to believe that any assembly to be held in the county will be an assembly to which this section applies but no notice has been given to them thereof under subsection (1) of this section, by the person intending to hold the same or by the occupier, as the case may be, they may as soon as reasonably practicable after the intention to hold the same has come to their knowledge serve on the person intending to hold the assembly and on the occupier of any land on which it appears the assembly is to be held a notice requiring that person to give to the Council the information required by subsection (3) of this section which information shall be supplied by the person on whom the notice is served within seven days after the service of such notice and to pay to the Council the amount required under that subsection.

      (5) If the site stated in a notice given in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section or information given in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section, of, in default of such information, the site that the Council have reason to believe to be the intended site shall in the reasonable opinion of the Council be too small or by reason of its situation or condition be unsuitable for the purpose of the proposed assembly or for the number expected to attend they may, without prejudice to any counter-notice under subsection (2) of this section, within one month after the receipt of a notice under subsection (1) of this section or of the information under subsection (4) thereof or, as the case may be, within one month after the expiry of the seven days referred to in subsection (4) of this section serve a counter-notice to that effect setting out in the case of unsuitability the grounds on which it is in the opinion of the Council unsuitable.

      (6) If the number of persons who attend the assembly exceeds the maximum number stated in the notice or information or, in the case where there has been a default as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, the number estimated by the Council the person giving the notice or information or required to give the information shall pay to the Council such additional amount in respect of the extra expense incurred by any authority by reason of the assembly as the Council may reasonably require.

      (7) A person giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or giving or required to give information under subsection (4) thereof shall deposit with the Council by way

      of security the amount required by the Council under subsections (3) and (4) of this section and shall also give to the Council a bond of reasonable amount with a sufficient surety to be approved by the Council for the payment of the amount which that person may be liable to pay to the Council in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section.

      (8) Any person aggrieved by the service of a counter-notice under subsection (5) of this section or by any terms or conditions required by the Council under this section including any payments or bonds for payment under this section may within fourteen days after the service of any notice or counter-notice from the Council appeal to a court of quarter sessions of the county and on such appeal the court may by order confirm, vary or set aside any such term, condition or requirement or may impose any term, condition or requirement which the Council would have been entitled to impose by virtue of this section and may quash any such counter-notice under subsection (5) and the Council shall give effect to such order accordingly and such order shall be final.

      (9).—(a) A person who holds an assembly to which this section applies without giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (3) thereof or after the service of a counter-notice under subsection (5) thereof shall be guilty of an offence.

      (b) The occupier of land who- permits that land to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section without giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (3) thereof or after the service of a counter-notice under subsection (5) thereof shall be guilty of an offence.

      (c) any person concerned in the management of an assembly to which this section applies or the occupier of land permitting that land to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section who contravenes any term, condition or requirement imposed under this section or who knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that such a term, condition or requirement was being contravened by some other person shall be guilty of an offence:

      Provided that in proceedings for an offence under this subsection it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the term, condition or requirement concerned.

      (d) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each day on which the offence is committed and the court convicting him may by the conviction adjudge him to pay to the Council such amount in respect of the extra expense incurred by the authorities by reason of the holding of the assembly or breach of the term or condition as the court may determine.

      (e) Section 41 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (recovery of costs and compensation awarded by magistrates, assizes, quarter sessions, etc.) shall have effect as if the following paragraph were contained in Part I of Schedule 9 to that Act:—

      "Where under section 5 of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971 a court adjudges a person to pay a sum of money in respect of extra expenses incurred by reason of the holding of an assembly or breach of a term or condition imposed under that section."

      (10) The Council may pay to any authority the whole or such part or parts of any sums received by them under subsections (3), (4), (6), (8) and (9) of this section as they may think fit.

      (11) An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which during any period exceeding three hours during the six hours following midnight there are not less than 5,000 people present.

      (12).—(a) In this section "authority" means the Council, a local authority, the police authority, the river and water authority, or any other body discharging functions in the county in pursuance of statutory powers.

      (b) For the purposes of this section a person who holds an assembly includes any person who—

      (i) on his own behalf or by his agent gives notice to the Council under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (4) of this section; or

      (ii) permits land occupied by him to be used as the site of an assembly; or

      (iii) charges admission to the site of the assembly; or

      (iv) is entitled, as a person promoting the assembly, or as the agent, licencee or assignee of a person promoting the assembly, to the television, broadcasting, filming or recording rights of the assembly or of any performance given in the course of it; or

      (v) is entitled as aforesaid to payment for goods sold or services rendered to persons attending the assembly or for the granting of rights to other persons to sell goods or services to persons attending the assembly.

      (13) This section shall come into operation on 1st December 1971.

    New Clause 5A

      MODEL TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 5
      5A.—(1) The Council shall formulate a model set of terms and conditions that may be imposed under section 5 of this Act upon a person seeking to hold an assembly in the county; but the fact that a term or condition compliance with which is actually required is not in the model set or differs from any corresponding term or condition in that set shall not invalidate the term or condition, compliance with which is actually required.

      (2) The Council shall make available for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price any model set of terms and conditions formulated under the preceding subsection.

      Read a second time.
      12.3 a.m.
      Mr. Tom Driberg: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in the proposed new Clause 5, subsection (2), line 3, after 'consultation ', insert 'and agreement'.
      Mr. Speaker: I hope that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment the two other Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman so that they may be discussed at the same time:
      In new Clause 5, subsection (2), line 4, leave out 'as the Council think fit', and insert:
      'concerned with the intended site'.
      In new Clause 5, subsection (5), in line 6, after 'attend', insert:
      'the Council shall consult with the local authority in whose area the intended site is situated and subject to that local authority's agreement'.
      Mr. Driberg: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It occurred to me, as I have already notified you, that this whole discussion might be out of order because the matters referred to in this Amendment could be sub judice. However, I am informed that the sub judice rule does not apply to legislation.
      The reason I mention this matter is that last Friday the Clerk to the Isle of Wight County Council issued a public statement to the Press to the effect that he on behalf of the Council had applied for injunctions against three landowners whose land might possibly be used—
      Mrs. Mark Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to a matter which is outside this Bill. This Bill will apply as amended, from 1st December this year. The writ to
      1258
      which the hon. Gentleman is referring applies to a pop festival which is intended to take place this year, about which the promoter has given no notice as to site, location or anything else. I submit that this matter is outside the Bill and outside the terms of the Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) must adhere strictly to the terms of his Amendment. As long as he does that, he will remain in order.
      Mr. Driberg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note the sensitivity displayed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) in referring to the heavy defeat he suffered in the other place in regard to the operation of the provision as from 1st December, which rules out this year. At the same time this reminds me of a curious letter by the clerk of the county council which I have in my hand in the course of which, in writing to a would-be possible promoter, he says:
      "In accordance with the council's policy of acting throughout as if their bill were law …".
      That seems to me to amount to a gross contempt of Parliament. No private promoter of a Bill has the right to assume that it will go through on the nod, as, of course, did the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who believed that few of us would oppose it on Second Reading, and that no substantial Amendments would be made to it in another place. I remember—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) wish to intervene?
      Mrs. Ray Mawby: I am sorry I intervened from a sitting position. Who was the promoter of the pop festival to whom the clerk wrote?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must be careful not to stray out of order on these Amendments. They concern whether a rural district council or other councils than the county council shall have certain mandatory powers.
      Mr. Driberg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you mentioned the rural district council because at present the relevant rural district council is totally opposed to the view of the county council which is proposing this Bill. That is a curious local situation and a curious local disagreement.
      I was saying—
      Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to give a ruling on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) raises, which is of some importance? Here we have a letter from the Clerk to the County Council of the Isle of Wight dated 12th July which explicitly says that he and his council are acting throughout as though their Bill were law. That raises serious matters. If a local authority assumes that any Bill it proposes to Parliament will automatically be passed, this makes proceedings in Parliament ludicrous. It seems to me that, in view of the point raised by my hon. Friend, it would be wise if you gave us a ruling on the propriety of the clerk to the county council acting, no doubt on behalf of the county council, in conducting all correspondence with prospective promoters in language which has been identified in the letter he sent out.
      Mr. Woodnutt: Further to that point of order—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can help the hon. Member considerably. It is nothing whatever to do with us in the House of Commons what the clerk says or does. What I am concerned with is that everybody speaks to the terms of the Amendment which are pretty narrow.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order. [Interruption.] Had I wanted to filibuster, I could have spoken at great length on other stages. I have chosen not to do so, but it seems to me that, even though you think it is not a matter for the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a matter for Parliament, in that
      1260
      people presenting Bills have no right to assume that the Bills they present will be acceptable.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we simply cannot discuss that at all at present. We have an Amendment before the House, and the hon. Member knows that whatever Motion is before the House, that Motion must be debated and nothing else. That is what we should be doing now. I am sorry I cannot help him further now, but I have my duty to do.
      Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the purpose of a Private Bill in this case is to give a local authority powers it does not have now, and if the county council is saying it is exercising those powers on the assumption that a Bill which is not yet law is about to become law, that is surely a derogation of the principle and purpose of legislation.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may or may not be the case. It is nothing to do with the present Amendment, and I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Maldon to proceed and discuss his Amendment.
      Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker I am not the hon. Member for Maldon.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, whether the matter arises as a point of order or not, it arises as a question of debate, because under the third Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is speaking—that in line 6, to add the words
      "the Council shall consult with the local authority in whose area the intended site is situated and subject to that local authority's agreement"—
      the conduct of the county council, when it is claiming to act in conformity with a Bill which has not yet been passed and which happens to be the Bill we are discussing, affects the way in which we should consider the Amendment.
      I therefore submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even though the matter might not be one that can be raised as a point of order, it is certainly one which should be raised as a matter of debate,

      1261
      because the conduct of the county council enters into the question whether we should agree to the Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt there either have been or could be opportunities when this matter could be discussed, but they cannot be said to occur upon this Amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Maldon to continue his speech.
      Mr. Driberg: I am not the hon. Member for Maldon.
      Mr. Woodnutt: Further to that point of order. It may assist hon. Members if I explain that when the county council wrote its letter there were no rules for controlling pop festivals and it suggested to the district councils and to the would-be promoter that they should act as though the Bill were law. The district councils and the would-be promoter agreed to this being done.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I must apologise to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for mistaking his constituency. If he will continue his speech I am sure that he will do his best to stay in order.
      Mr. Driberg: With reference to the last point of order raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, it is nonsense to say that there were no rules which the county council could exercise in controlling pop festivals. On the contrary, in another letter the clerk of the county council remarked that it was necessary, for example, to continue to consider the following, all of which are mentioned in the Clause—the site, the layout of the site, access to the site, dates, hours, music, number of people attending, water supply, provision of toilets, as he calls them, and so on. These would all be relevant in the context of such Statutes as the Public Health Act, 1936, which the clerk himself refers to. To say that there were no rules that would enable the county council to control such a festival is absolute rubbish.
      The high-handedness and arrogance of the county council in presuming to dictate to Parliament and to say that the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament can simply be disregarded and that
      1262
      everything will go through on the nod at the magical touch of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who has had very nasty defeats in the other House particularly, are typical of the combination of repression and evasion which has characterised the conduct of the county council throughout the various stages of the Bill. It was in March that approaches were first made to the county council to try to arrange something in the nature of a pop festival, properly controlled, of course, in accordance with the rules which exist.
      Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all being patient, but has this anything to do with the Amendment which we are supposed to be discussing?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has raised a point of order as to whether the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is in order in what he is saying. I am not quite sure that he is. I was intending to see how the hon. Gentleman would relate what he was saying to these Amendments. If he constantly relates what he is saying to these Amendments he has a chance of staying in order.
      12.15 a.m.
      Mr. Driberg: When you replied to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to try to intervene on another point of order to suggest that perhaps questions of order might be left to the Chair, as is customary. But evidently the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is so frightened about his little Bill that he wants to gag anyone who dares to utter a word of criticism about it.
      You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the terms of the principal Amendment are narrow. That may be so. But it is very long, and I suppose that I should be in order if I read every line and commented upon it—which I am prepared to do. But I must—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in going into the terms of the main Question now. He must deal with his Amendments first. Then he will have a chance to speak to the main Question.
      Mr. Driberg: I am sorry, but I shall have to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy

      1263
      Speaker. I have very little experience of this kind of Measure.
      Although you say that the terms of Lords Amendment No. 4 are narrow, it is a very long Amendment. Then there are Amendments to it in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), whose absence—[Interruption.]—through illness will be regretted by all of us, except by cads.
      It was before you assumed the Chair that Mr. Speaker said that we should take all these Amendments together—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me make the position as clear as I can. The hon. Member for Barking is moving the first of his three Amendments to the Lords Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried, then I shall put the following two. If it is not carried, they will lapse. Then I shall call Lords Amendment No. 4, which is to insert new Clause 5 and 5A. However, the hon. Gentleman must wait until it is called before he can discuss it.
      Mr. Driberg: I am obliged for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I shall deal briefly with the first of my Amendments—[Interruption.]—although the more often that one is interrupted, the less brief one is apt to be. Those hon. Members who do not want to listen had better shut up and go back to the Smoking Room.
      It seems to me that the words "and agreement" after "consultation" are the sort of words which it should be natural to add in a Measure of this kind if there were good will on both sides. In this case, we know that there is no good will on the side of the county council, which has been determined from the first to crush and prevent anything in the nature of a pop festival. That is the real motive behind the Bill, as we know from various phenomena, the behaviour of hon. Members opposite and words uttered by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.
      The hon. Gentleman said to the Press at one point that he knew of two perfectly good sites which would be acceptable to the county council. When asked which they were, he said that he would not say and that he was not going to help "the so and so's".
      1264
      The words "and agreement" may be otiose, since there is no good will on the side of the county council. Therefore, I do not press that Amendment. However, if any of my hon. Friends wishes to say anything about it, should he do so at this point or when I have finished speaking about the Amendments in general?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should continue his speech, move his Amendment, and then let the debate continue on the Amendment.
      Mr. Driberg: Then I beg to move the Amendment, without any hope that it will have a satisfactory outcome.
      My second Amendment proposes to leave out
      "as the Council think fit"
      and to insert
      "concerned with the intended site"
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have studied the Bill in some detail, as I am sure they all have or they would not be here, will realise at once the relevance of that substitution.
      My third Amendment is important. It is to insert,
      'the Council shall consult with the local authority in whose area the intended site is situated and subject to that local authority's agreement'.
      This means the rural district council more particularly than the county council. The county council having shown itself obtusely hostile to the whole question of having a pop festival in the Isle of Wight, the rural district council has taken a somewhat more moderate and reasonable view, greatly to the annoyance, I am sure, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill.
      I do not think that I need say very much more about those three Amendments. [Interruption.] I have given one warning to the claque opposite. If they go on bellowing in this inane, animal way, I shall make a much longer speech.
      Mr. Michael Foot: I have not participated in these debates previously, but, having spent the last hour or two reading some of the discussions which have taken place, I am extremely sorry that I have not examined the matter before. I believe that the more one examines the debates which have led to the stage we have now

      1265
      reached, the more one must acknowledge that important public issues are involved.
      I speak only for myself in this debate. This is a Private Bill and, therefore, nobody is speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition on this subject, just as I gather that nobody is speaking officially on behalf of the Government, although we may have a Government inclination expressed by the hon. Gentleman who is to speak—
      Mr. Stanley Orme: The Whips are on, are they not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then what are they doing here?
      Mrs. Foot: It is necessary that the House should look at the matter carefully. I believe that the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), if passed, would at least provide some protection against the desires of the county council which are bound to arouse suspicion in the mind of anyone who wishes to protect the rights of assembly in this country and, if those rights are to be altered, to ensure that they are altered in a proper fashion.
      The Amendment, if passed, would mean that the county council instead of being able to decide the matter by itself, shall secure the agreement of the other local authority in the area to what it wishes to do. That seems a very moderate request. I should think that the easiest way for the hon. Gentleman who has sponsored the Bill, if that is the correct way of describing him, to deal with the matter is to say at once that he is eager to accept the Amendment. After all, the county council ought to be able to persuade the rural district council in the same area that what it is proposing is advisable in the interests of all the citizens in the Isle of Wight. It does not seem a very tall order.
      We are entitled to ask for these protections, because something very strange is being attempted by the Bill. That is one reason for my interest in being here tonight, as well as for many of my hon. Friends and, I gather, for so many hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government should agree with these Amendments because they have expressed doubts about the Bill right from the beginning. Throughout, they have suggested, rightly, that it might be better that a matter of
      1266
      this kind, affecting the right of assembly, should be dealt with by a Government Bill.
      I remember very well that in the last Parliament, when Private Members' Bills, as opposed to Private Bills, were being passed, hon. Members opposite, whether on divorce, abortion or many other matters, often argued that it would be better for such legislation to be introduced in a satisfactory form which did not leave matters frayed at the edges and that such Measures should be introduced by the Government. Some of us did not think that that was so necessary particularly when those Bills—whether on abortion, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment or whatever it may have been—were subject to detailed lengthy examination in the House of Commons over many days and weeks of investigation.
      If, however, that argument is accepted at all by hon. Members opposite—that Private Members' Bills of a character which dealt with public issues would better be dealt with by a Government who examined the whole legislative possibilities before hand—how much more does that apply to a Private Bill which attempts to deal with a public issue? That is what is happening in this case. The Government have acknowledged from the beginning that the Bill is one which, perhaps, they would have preferred to deal with. The Government know very well that the right of assembly affects not only the Isle of Wight, but the whole country. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for the country—I am citing the Government's view——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a tendency to stray away from the Amendments on to broad principles. I am sure he will see the point. We must keep to the Amendments.
      Mrs. Foot: I should have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that everything I am now saying is covered by what I said at the beginning, when I said that my hon. Friend's Amendments would introduce a modest restriction on what is proposed in the Bill—that is, the restriction that the county council, in order to get its way, would have to secure the agreement of the local authority in the area. I was arguing—and I hope, Mr. Deputy

      1267
      Speaker, that you will permit me to continue to argue—that the Government, and others whom I will mention presently, have said that the right of assembly is such an important question, affecting not only the Isle of Wight, but many others in the country, that it should be dealt with, if it is to be dealt with effectively, by a Government Bill.
      I do not say that that was a major argument used by the Government but it was a hint given. Unfortunately, hints are not taken by the county council in the Isle of Wight, which is precisely why we have to introduce Amendments of this kind which would bind the county council in the Isle of Wight to take account of the feelings of hon. Members.
      Mr. John Gorst: Surely, in arguing about the right of assembly, the hon. Gentleman is causing confusion. Just as there is a difference between freedom, on the one hand, and licence, on the other hand, surely there is also a difference between the right of assembly on the one side, and unruly and unorganised assembly, on the other side.
      Mrs. Foot: I should be happy if it were in order to argue the issue with the hon. Member, but it is not in order. I am not arguing in this case where the law should be drawn about rights of assembly. Where it should be drawn is a matter of dispute between different sides or between hon. Members, as the previous arguments have shown. What nobody can dispute, however, is that the question of the right of assembly arises in the Bill. That is not my statement but is the statement from the Government. In the earlier debates their spokesman referred to this and said that they had doubts. They said that Clause 5 was awkward in some respects. I believe that the Minister himself said it. Nobody could deny that the question of the right of assembly is influenced by the Bill.
      12.30 a.m.
      Therefore the argument arose—both in the Second Reading debate and in the discussions in the House of Lords which have led to the Amendments—whether the best way to deal with a change in the law affecting the right of assembly was by a Bill introduced to deal with the affairs of one county council—
      Mr. Woodnutt: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman to get back to the terms of the Amendment by reminding him that the Isle of Wight County Council has been pressing for public legislation. I agree with the hon. Member that there should be public legislation, and I shall give him full support in any efforts he likes to make in future to obtain public legislation. Perhaps he can now get back to the Amendment.
      Mr. Foot: The question whether I am speaking to the Amendment is not for the hon. Member to determine; it is for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members can make representations to the Chair. If the hon. Member had wanted to do so he could have done, but he did not. He asked to be allowed to intervene, and then purported to say that I was out of order. In my submission that is highly disorderly conduct.
      Nobody who has read the reports of the previous discussion of the Bill can say that the question of the right of assembly does not arise. Those who have spoken on the Bill in this House and in another place have argued that it would be better to have a separate Government Bill to deal with the question, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight—
      Mrs. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I must ask him to leave the development of the point about the right of assembly and come to the question whether there should be a mandatory instruction to the county council to consult local councils before coming to a decision. That is what we are talking about, and not about any larger question on the right of assembly. It is in order to mention that in passing. Many people mention things in passing which, if developed, would become out of order.
      Mr. Foot: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not sought in any sense to argue the merits of the issue about the right of assembly. I have merely referred to the fact that the Bill deals with that issue, and have said, therefore, that when we discuss the Amendment and consider whether the House is proposing to place restrictions on the activities of the county council we are entitled to take into account the whole history of the matter, and the fact

      1269
      that questions of major public importance are affected by the Bill.
      It is not only the Government who have underlined this question, in the earlier interventions of the Minister himself; the discussions in the other place, which have resulted in the Bill's being sent back to us in this form, have dealt with it. On a number of occasions many speakers in the other place said that they thought it much more satisfactory for a matter of this kind to be dealt with by a Government Measure. All my reading of the Bill persuades me that that is correct. The fact that an Amendment of this nature has to be considered by this House is further evidence of that fact.
      I should have thought that the hon. Members who are sponsoring the Bill would be only too eager to agree with the Amendments. If they say that they will not accept them we are forced to the conclusion that the county council does not believe that it can secure the agreement of the local authorities in which these activities are to take place.
      Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Nonsense.
      Mr. Foot: Very well. If the county council can secure the agreement of the local authority, why object to these Amendments? It is very simple: if hon. Members who are sponsoring or supporting the Bill wish to assure the House that the county council, at least in this respect, will not act arrogantly, let them accept the Amendments. The county council will not then be able to apply this part of the Bill—which some of us regard with the greatest suspicion because it touches an important aspect of the right of assembly—without having to win the approval of the elected local authority in the same area.
      That is not much to ask. If, on the other hand, the sponsors of the Bill reject the Amendments, they will be showing that they wish to give to this county council exorbitant powers, and exorbitant powers, as I say, dealing with matters which the Government themselves say would be better dealt with in a Government Bill.
      The best service that the sponsors can do is to accept the Amendments straight away, though probably the best service
      1270
      that the House of Commons could do for the rights of free assembly in this country is to throw the Bill out altogether.
      Mr. Woodnutt: The promoters of the Bill cannot possibly accept these Amendments. They are far too loosely worded. In effect, the county council could do nothing. Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, the county council has to consult. That is acceptable. But under the Amendments it would have to obtain the agreement of all local authorities concerned with an intended site.
      The whole of the Isle of Wight is concerned with any intended site. The whole island is only 95,000 acres. We have two borough councils, three urban district councils, one rural district council, a joint Isle of Wight water and river board, a policy authority. All are concerned. Yet hon. Members opposite are suggesting that, before taking effective action on a tight timetable, the county council must consult all those authorities and obtain their agreement. It is not practicable in the timetable.
      It has been suggested that there is a difference of opinion between the councils in the Isle of Wight. There is not. The district councils on the island approve this Clause as it stands. The Isle of Wight County Council represents the whole of the island—all the 105,000 souls living there—and the maximum represented by any one district council is 20,000. Clearly, this is a function of the Isle of Wight County Council.
      The matters about which local authorities would wish to impose conditions are mainly functions which concern the county council, not the district councils. I have in mind the ambulance service, for instance, seeing that there is proper space for ambulances and proper access roads for them to get in and out quickly. That is a function of the county council. The fire service is a function of the county council. All the access roads and road generally in the whole of the rural districts of Ventnor, and public health in its broadest sense are functions of the county council.
      Mr. Denis Howell: All the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which are of importance, are matters with which the county council already has powers to deal.
      Mr. Woodnutt: With respect, if the hon. Gentleman had attended the previous debates, he would understand what I am talking about. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who made similar comments a few minutes ago, must remember the Second Reading debate. I pointed out then that although the councils have the right to lay down rules for public health—sanitation, the number of lavatories, and so on—in the event of promoters not abiding by those regulations the fine is a derisory £10. Will that stop a promoter who is mainly in it for the money he can make out of 250,000 people? The object of the Bill is to see that the powers are given teeth.
      It is ridiculous to suggest that the Isle of Wight could accept the Amendment, for the reasons I have given. But there is another reason that is even more valid. We have been seeing the Bill through the House since. March, and hon. Members opposite have done everything to hold it up and stop it reaching the Statute Book.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, not all hon. Members opposite have done anything to hold up the Bill. In the past they have not bothered to turn up, because they have not had any interest in it. They only turn up now, at the last minute, to try to muck up a Bill which has the overwhelming support of the House and the people of the Isle of Wight. Hon. Members opposite are a bunch of wreckers.
      Mr. Woodnutt: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. It reminds me that many hon. Members opposite have supported us throughout, and I am pleased to see some of them here tonight.
      This is another exercise to try to delay the Bill, to send it back to another place so that it will not reach the Statute Book. We shall oppose the Amendment and see that the Bill does reach the Statute Book.
      Mr. Bernard Conlan: I was rather surprised to hear what was said about hon. Members on this side opposing the Bill, although the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) rectified that belatedly. Many of us have supported it throughout, and have voted in the Lobbies in support of it.
      1272
      I am also surprised, however, that the hon. Gentleman is fiercely opposing the Amendments, which I believe to be reasonable. I emphasise that I accept the general principles of the Bill. I support the Bill. But when the Isle of Wight County Council is asking for these powers, presumably it is asking for them with the general agreement of the local authorities within the island, and acting as a sort of umbrella, a kind of watershed, for the views and desires of the local authorities. If my interpretation is correct, I should have thought that the county council would have been pleased and enthusiastic about consulting the various local authorities within the island, because although it is the overall authority for the island the problems of nuisance that can arise from such gatherings as pop festivals are really for the local authority. The local authority is the authority most directly and vitally concerned with the annoyance that can arise from the gathering of a large number of people, and it might be asked to agree that a pop festival or any other event should occur within its area. Although I support the Bill, its general intentions and purposes, I think it might have been wiser if the sponsors could have accepted these reasonable Amendments and I cannot support them in their opposition to them.
      12.45 a.m.
      Mr. Denis Howell: When I intervened earlier, I inferred that all the things which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) was speaking of—questions of public health, access and so on—could be dealt with under present legislation, particularly the Public Health Acts, and it is interesting to recall that he denounced me for not having been here at earlier stages. He is entitled to do so, but it is an odd thing if an hon. Member who exercises his right to speak in this Chamber is to be denounced like that. It does not help his case. The hon. Gentleman—and I have read the reports of the earlier stages—has never given the House any examples of why these powers are necessary and why the present legislation cannot be exercised to deal with the matters he referred to.
      It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I have a great deal of sympathy for the point he has taken up. But I hold the view, along with the Home

      1273
      Office, that this is not the way in which these matters should be dealt with. I will give a few examples which lead me to that conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I might be obliged, by interventions from hon. Members who may have been here at earlier stages but have no intention of making constructive contributions, to take a little longer than I intended. That would be a pity because this is not a filibuster. I am on a point of major concern. It is interesting to note the behaviour of hon. Members opposite who do not want the arguments dealt with on their merits.
      There are major questions of public concern in public assemblies of all sorts at present. The question therefore is whether one local authority should have power to determine this matter after consultation with other local authorities but not in agreement with them, and it is a question of major importance. Such a local authority should not be able so to determine on the basis of this Bill.
      There is great concern in the country at the behaviour of football crowds. I go so far as to say that such behaviour is causing greater public disorder and concern—I regret to have to say this—than the behaviour at pop festivals on the Isle of Wight. Such behaviour is as much a matter of concern if one lives in Halifax, after last Saturday's scenes, for example.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is the fault of the referees.
      Mr. Howell: We can deal with this seriously. This is a serious matter, although I do not expect that to be understood in Rutland and Stamford.
      I will be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to ask what the Government intend to do about the whole subject of crowd control at public gatherings.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That question is out of order. The hon. Member is taxing me rather hard. Hon. Members on my right would do much better and dispatch the business much more quickly if they were quieter. I hope that hon. Members will keep to the terms of the Amendments.
      Mr. Howell: I half expected that Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was why I invited you intervene at that point.
      In the absence of a proper guarantee about the major questions which I want to raise, including what I describe as the democratic point, we are entitled to say that local authorities on the island should have more than just the right to be consulted. If the borough, rural district, or parish council of the area where the festival is to be held disagrees with the county council, there should be some means to determine who is right. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight says that in every such case the will of the county council will prevail. He seems quite unaware of the need to give conclusive justification for that. If the consultation between the county council and the other authority concerned breaks down, how is the disagreement to be resolved? What is the justification for the will of the county council prevailing in such an eventuality?
      The case has not been made out and. if only to get the explanation about what will happen in such an eventuality, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) was fully justified in moving the Amendment.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): It may assist the House if I intervene briefly at this stage.
      The House will recall that the principles of the Bill, including those of Clause 5, were decided by the House on Second Reading. The normal practice is that the Government express their views in the terms of a report which is considered by the Select Committee examining the Bill. The points which we made were examined by the Select Committee, and many of the reservations which we expressed were met.
      We made no observations on the lines of these Amendments, and they must be matters for the House to settle this evening. I may express my own views, but the Government have not expressed a view about these Amendments.
      Mr. Hamling: I had not intended to take part in these proceedings until I heard the rather ill-bred interventions in the speech of my hon. Friend the

      1275
      Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and the ill temper with which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) replied to the comments on the Amendments. It is taxing the patience of the House to talk of tremendous opposition to the Bill when only two of my hon. Friends voted against it on Second Reading or for the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight to speak of my hon. Friends making very long speeches opposing the Bill when there has, in fact, been very little opposition to it.
      It is rather odd for the Minister to say that the Government have no view on the Bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not perhaps for me to say this, but the Minister did not say that the Government have no view on the Bill. He was talking about the Amendment, which is what the hon. Member should be talking about.
      Mr. Hamling: The Minister said that the Government have no view on the Amendment and that the House must make up its mind. Yet we see the serried ranks of Lobby fodder below the Gangway, who have come here not to decide on the merits of the Amendment but to keep a House so that the Government do not lose the Bill. We know exactly what goes on about Private Bills.
      Mr. Angus Maude: To save a great deal of time—because the hon. Member is obviously prepared to devote a great deal of time to it—may I ask him to take it from us that we are not Lobby fodder and that there are no Whips? Each of us has a view about the Bill, and we thought it worth while to come here to support that view.
      Mr. Hamling: I was talking about hon. Members below the Gangway.
      Mrs. Mawby: As an hon Member below the Gangway, may I assure the hon. Member that there are no Whips? We have attended every sitting on the Bill in the Chamber, unlike the hon. Member. He misquoted the Minister, who in fact said that points had been made by the Government and considered by the Select Committee. We are dis-
      1276
      cussing Lords Amendments. I hope that at least the hon. Member will withdraw his allegation that the Government have made certain statements—which are in fact contrary to what they have said.
      Mr. Hamling: If hon. Members below the Gangway had earlier behaved a little better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will withdraw nothing I have said until I am directed by the Chair to do so. It is about time that Government supporters realised that we on these benches are as much entitled as anyone to discuss Private Bills and to make speeches without ill-tempered accusations from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and interruptions from below the Gangway. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking is as much entitled as anyone to discuss a Private Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I will take as long as I like—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should be a little careful about the way in which he makes his speech. It is in order to say of hon. Members opposite that they are not behaving as they should, but to develop a speech almost exclusively along those lines is an abuse of the procedure of the House. The hon. Member would do well to address himself to the Amendment; and hon. Members on the other side of the House should bear in mind that the quieter they are, the sooner we shall get the business through.
      1.0 a.m.
      Mr. Hamling: I hope that hon. Members will take the point, that the quieter they are the sooner they will get their Bill. So long as we have no interruptions—
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he sees that the House is quiet, ought to address himself to the Amendment.
      Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend has raised important arguments to which I wish to direct my attention. The third Amendment talks about the local authority in whose area the even is to be held. It surprised me that when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight replied to the Amendment he talked of "all authorities". Surely in an area where an event is to be held there is only one local

      1277
      authority or at the most a couple of parish councils and perhaps a rural district council. Surely the area to be covered by an event is not so large that it is concerned with all local authorities on the Island as well as the county council?
      This seems to be a reasonable Amendment, and I cannot understand why the promoters seem so determined to reject the hand of agreement held out across the Floor of the House. I intervened to discover why they take this attitude and object to this modest suggestion. Only two reasons have been given as to why the Amendment should not be accepted. First, the hon. Gentleman talked about "local authorities" instead of "the local authority". The second argument was that these powers were needed because existing ones were inadequate. That argument relates not to the Amendment but to the whole of the Bill, therefore, we have only had one argument against the Amendment.
      When local authorities are asking the House to give specific powers they should be as careful as possible to meet all possible objections. The House is expected to give time for such Bills and to grant them expedition. The Government are expected to give not only time but some facilites so that they are passed. There is an obligation upon local authorities—to meet objections—without the ill-temper shown earlier.
      I cannot see how the Amendment would make any difference to the purposes of the Bill. The promoters would still be left with their powers and could do what they want to do. There would simply be the modest addition asking the county council to consult the local authority.
      Mrs. Woodnutt: The hon. Gentleman is, I am sure unintentionally, misleading the House. This obligation on the part of the county council to consult the other authorities is already in the Bill.
      Mrs. Handing: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that they are prepared to consult the local authority—
      Mrs. Woodnutt: They must consult.
      Mrs. Handing: —what objection does he have to my hon. Friend's Amendment? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say the Amendment is wrong because it
      1278
      would require consultation and at the same time say that consultation must take place under the Bill. [Interruption.] Surely the purpose of consultation is to get agreement.
      If the promoters say the Amendment is badly drafted, they have a simple remedy—to draft their own Amendment. It is normal, particularly in Committee, for the Government to agree with the principle of an Amendment, particularly one tabled by the Opposition who do not have the services of well-paid parliamentary draftsmen at their disposal, but reject it on the understanding that they will introduce a better worded Amendment later.
      My hon. Friend has made a reasonable proposition, although I will not be in the Lobby later to vote for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "]—because there is agreement between the two Front Benches on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there is.
      Mrs. Sharples: I do not know of any such agreement.
      Mr. Hamling: I appreciate that, and I have not consulted the Minister about it. However, it is well known in the Whips Office that Opposition Whips do not vote in these matters. I will not be voting in the Division for that reason. Whether or not one votes in a Division, there is no reason why the House should not have a better explanation than it has received. Having heard the opening part of the debate, I was moved to intervene because I thought the House was being treated with less consideration than it was entitled to receive, and that my hon. Friend's arguments were entitled to a better reply.
      Mrs. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The Government's attitude to the Amendments has been that they had not a view—
      Mrs. Sharples: The position is that the Government express their view on all Private Member's Bills in a report. We did not express a requirement for Amendments of this kind.
      Mrs. Bagier: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say previously that new Clause 5 was satisfactory to the Government but that the Amendment was not sufficiently strongly worded for him to express a view. I have supported the Bill

      1279
      through all its stages, and I do not see what the difficulty is in seeking agreement.
      Suppose the Isle of Wight County Council wished to have a pop festival and imposed that festival on a certain rural district council. Would not the rural district council's agreement have to be sought? This might be taken as a blueprint and possibly as a widening of the powers of other county councils. The West Riding County Council and the Northumberland County Council are very large authorities which may not know the local aspects of an urban or rural district council. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to think again and provide for agreement to be sought as well as for consultation.
      Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lords Amendment No. 4. Mr. Woodnutt?
      Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Could you possibly put the Question on the two other Amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am afraid I cannot take them for a Division. If the first Amendment had been carried, I would have put them because they are consequential, but I do not propose to put them now.
      Mr. Driberg: With great respect, are they strictly consequential? They seem to deal with somewhat different points.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: They are not selected. What I meant to say was that they were not selected for Division. Mr. Speaker was quite definite about that.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Did not Mr. Speaker when he was in the Chair invite my hon. Friend to discuss the second and third Amendments with the first Amendment? I thought that was what he said. I may have misheard it. Therefore, I thought it might follow that they could be put to the vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a perfectly reasonable supposition. I understand that Mr. Speaker said that the three Amendments could be discussed together, and that it would be possible to divide
      1280
      upon the first. I understood him to say that the second and third Amendments were not selected for a Division.
      1.15 a.m.
      Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. With the greatest possible respect, Mr. Speaker said that the three Amendments could be discussed together. It is common practice for several Amendments to be discussed together, but it is for the mover of them to have the right to divide or not to divide on each separately. I had intended to divide on the third one if it were so put.
      Mr. Maude: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since it is clear that the Opposition do not intend to divide because they are not here, does it really matter? Would it not save time if we did not have Divisions?
      Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you disregard that intervention as irrelevant, ungallant and impertinent and give a Ruling on a matter on which Mr. Speaker did not rule?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should like to help the hon. Gentleman if I can. I am bound by the rules of order. What I would like to do is to take back the first Question and allow him a Division if he wants it, but I cannot do that, having dealt with the Question. The hon. Gentleman must accept that I cannot assist him. I am afraid that our business must now continue because the next two Amendments are not selected by Mr. Speaker for Divisions, and nothing can be done about forcing one.
      Mr. Driberg: We shall have to wait until the day after tomorrow to see in HANSARD whether Mr. Speaker did say what I did not hear him say, that separate Divisions would not be allowed. [Interruption.] I hear one of the usual catcalls from the other side. I am sorry to delay you in this way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to divide on the third Amendment, not on the first and second. Mr. Speaker said nothing about not selecting them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is the situation as it is now. I am afraid that we cannot go back on the matter and I do now so rule. The hon. Gentleman

      1281
      knows that the Chair is indivisible, and I rule that the situation is as I have said. We must now pass to Amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Woodnutt: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Driberg: I am surprised that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has not said anything in support of his Motion. He has, I take it, exhausted his right to speak except by leave of the House. It is odd that he has not told us why he has felt obliged, or why the county council has felt obliged, to concede so many points to the strong representations made to it in another place.
      There are a number of differences—some minor, some major—between the new Clause and the original Clause. However, there are still a number of extremely objectionable features in Clause 5 which some of us would not wish to accept without severe questioning. One difference occurs at the end of subsection (2) where two lines are added on the matter of public order:
      "Provided that no term or condition relating to public order shall be imposed without the consent of the Chief Constable of the police authority."
      I should think so indeed! It is arrogant of the county council in the first instance to have tried to take over from the chief constable powers relating to public order. This is characteristic of the way in which this very badly drafted Bill has been handled throughout. This must be particularly distasteful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight since it was the chief constable who paid a glowing tribute to the behaviour of most of the young people who attended last year's pop festival. Their conduct in general was good. None the less, that did not lessen the prejudice of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and the county council against their relatively innocent enjoyment. [Interruption.] Do hon. Members wish to interrupt or do they just want to barrack? They should keep quiet.
      Mrs. Mawby: The hon. Member trailed his coat then. Surely he will recollect that as a result of last year's pop festival, a lot of young people were misrepresented, that the company which operated
      1282
      it went into liquidation and that some problems arose.
      Mr. Driberg: I do not quite see how that is relevant to the point I was making. I was referring to the chief constable and was reminding the House that he paid tribute, as did the police generally, to the good conduct and behaviour of the majority of the young people. Of course, there were some bad hats among them—I am not talking about the promoters, or anything to do with them—but the chief constable paid that tribute which must be distasteful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.
      We move to subsection (3). I am not sure that it is fair to expect the promoters to pay the council an excessive amount in advance, a deposit which might be enormous, because, although it says
      "such amount … as the council may reasonably require"
      it is obvious that the council's ideas of how much money it can get out of the promoters or organisers of a pop festival is fairly inflated, since later in the Clause, in both old and new versions, it is empowered to impose fines not exceeding £400, and on indictment not exceeding £1,000, for each day on which an offence is committed.
      The offence may be any breach, however tiny or technical, of the arduous and rigorous conditions laid down by the county council. If it says that there must be a mile of urinals and there is a mile minus a furlong or minus half a furlong, there is a £1,000 a day fine. This is a ridiculous idea. One would like to know how much the county council may reasonably require under subsection (3). Hon. Members can read it for themselves. I take it they can read. [Interruption.]
      Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I hope we shall understand it better than the hon. Member seems to.
      Mr. Driberg: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, but he should always make his interventions standing and not from a sitting position.
      There are a number of other provisions, some of which are reasonable and unexceptionable, but some of which are going much too far in interfering with the ordinary rights of assembly and the ordinary rights of people assembled

      1283
      for public occasions in the open or for some particular purpose, political, religious or pop festival or anything else. The whole of this Bill and of this Clause is extremely dangerous in its newer form, which alters very little the old form.
      It is interesting that the county council, for all its intransigence, has felt obliged to agree with some of the weighty criticisms made by members of another place. The legal members there were particularly appalled, one gathers, by the disgraceful drafting of this Bill. They said it was, legally, one of the worst pieces of drafting they had ever seen, which was not surprising.
      I have already referred to the amount of the fine. It is extraordinary that a county council can set up laws for itself, creating new offences and imposing such enormously drastic and heavy fines as £1,000 a day for each day on which some trivial infringement of regulations occurs. Altogether the Clause in its original form and as redrafted contains almost everything to which some of us objected on Second Reading. I particularly resent the sneers which have been directed from the other side at the fact that only a few of us took part in the debate on Second Reading or in other debates. There were rather more on Report, as it happened. The size of a minority in any argument is not necessarily the only test of its merit.
      Mr. Gorst: There has not been much quality, either.
      Mr. Driberg: That is a matter of opinion. The hon. Gentleman's opinion is naturally echoed by a few barks from his friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are the hon. Gentleman's Friends?"] The exquisite quality of the wit emanating from the other side enables me to say "tu quoque". The hon. Gentleman does not have to stay. He can go straight back to the Smoking Room and enjoy himself. He will not be bored there, except by the sound of his own dreary voice.
      Mr. Tebbit: If I wanted to be bored by a dreary voice, it is clear why I came into the Chamber.
      Mr. Driberg: Goodness, the wit that is being displayed! It is almost overwhelming; it is so scintillating. I fear I shall have to disappoint you, Mr.
      1284
      Speaker, and the House, in that I cannot go on giving way to interventions if they cannot do better than that. I do not want either to bore or to detain the House unduly. I shall therefore end this brief speech by saying that the essence of the Bill and of this Clause, the most important Clause in the Bill, is that there are a number of young people from all over Europe as well as from all over Britain who were hoping, and who may yet just have the chance, to come to the Isle of Wight this year for another festival, to enjoy themselves in wonderful, beautiful, rustic surroundings, to enjoy the sort of music that they happen to like best and which they are entitled to like. The object of the Bill and of the county council is to frustrate that wish of theirs and to crush in the most ruthless and unscrupulous way, any attempt to meet it; that is the way in which the Bill has been presented and handled by the county council throughout.
      Mr. Charles Curran: I suggest to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that his fears both about the Clause and about the Bill in general are misconceived. He thinks, no doubt honestly, that behind the Bill is some kind of plot against the right of public assembly. Others of his colleagues have taken that same line as though the Bill were the tip of an iceberg which is intended to interfere with the right of public assembly. I am a supporter of the Bill, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not supporting it out of any desire to limit or truncate the right of public assembly.
      1.30 a.m.
      I support the Bill for a quite different reason. I recognise—I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me—that the right of public assembly, like every other right, must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. The right of public essembly must be exercised with due regard to the rights on non-assemblers. I am sure that we are all in favour of free speech. I am equally sure that we all agree that the right of free speech, like the right of assembly, must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. The hon. Gentleman will remember, no doubt, that it was laid down not by any supporter of Tory reaction but by Justice Wendell Holmes that the right of free

      1285
      speech does not confer upon someone the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
      The Bill is promoted not to interfere with the right of assembly. It is promoted to see that if that right is exercised in the Isle of Wight it is exercised with due regard to those who live in the Isle of Wight—
      Mr. Michael Foot: Even admitting all that the hon. Gentleman says about the rights of non-assemblers, does he not agree that it would be better if a Bill dealing with the right of assembly were drafted and presented to the House by the Government? There may be a case even for a Private Member's Bill dealing with it, but for a Private Bill to deal with matters of that nature is an innovation, and a dangerous one.
      Mrs. Curran: That may be true. I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman's opinion is that this is a Bill which deals with a matter that should be dealt with by the Government. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view. But it is not necessarily an argument against the Bill to say that the Bill is all right but there is a better one laid up in heaven or in some office in Whitehall. We are here to debate this Bill and to decide whether we accept it. We must look at the Bill and see whether it satisfies us.
      Mrs. Speaker: Order. I thought that we were debating Lords Amendment No. 4, not the Bill.
      Mr. Curran: Perhaps I was drawn into a cul-de-sac by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I shall back out of it and resume my remarks, which are directed to the Clause which the hon. Member for Barking criticised.
      The hon. Gentleman's fear that the Bill is a threat to the right of assembly is unfounded. His other fear that the Bill is a threat to the right of youth to get together is equally unfounded. The hon. Gentleman is—
      Mr. Driberg: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman heard the beginning of the Second Reading debate. If he did, he will remember that when I said that the effect of the Bill would be to wipe out pop festivals altogether, in the Isle of Wight, at any rate, there was a tremendous roar of applause from hon.
      1286
      Members about him, indicating that that was precisely what they wanted.
      Mr. Curran: I heard the hon. Gentleman speak. If there was a roar of applause, I did not join it. I am not hostile to any right of youth to get together for a festival. All I say about that right is that it must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. It may be that the Isle of Wight, being a small place, is not suitable for youth festivals. No one is better fitted to judge that than the elected authority for the Isle of Wight. The county council is as competent to form a judgment about that as I am, or as the hon. Gentleman is. If it comes to the conclusion, as it does, that the Isle of Wight is not a suitable place for bringing together large numbers of young people, I think that that opinion must be respected. What it is arguing, if I understand it aright, is not that it wishes to veto youth assemblies on the island, but that, if they take place, they must take place with due regard to the rights of the people who live there. Does the hon. Gentleman object to that? Does he think that is an unreasonable claim?
      Mr. Driberg: Not in the least, since the hon. Gentleman challenges me. But it was possible to see that it was carried out by agreement under the existing legislation without this draconian Bill.
      Mr. Curran: Surely that is the whole point of the discussion. The hon. Gentleman says that it is possible to carry it out by agreement. That has not been possible. That is why the Bill has been introduced. There is no desire among the supporters of the Bill to forbid the right of young people to enjoy themselves. There are plenty of places in these islands where they can do it. I agree that it is not as easy to do it here as in America. But we are not talking about Woodstock; we are talking about the Isle of Wight. If youth want to get together in the fashion that was made popular at Woodstock and is now being mimicked in this country—so much of the youth movement of this country is a kind of organised mimickry of what goes on in America—I ask them to remember that the Americans have more space in which to do it than we have here.
      If somebody wants to stage and mimic Woodstock in this country, will they do it on Salisbury Plain or on Dartmoor?

      1287
      There are open spaces, even in these islands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Barking."] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Barking puts forward Barking as a suitable place for a British Woodstock. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ebbw Vale."] The attractions of Ebbw Vale may not be particularly magnetic to youth.
      I am not supporting any attempt to suppress youth gatherings. I have no objection if young people want to get together to enjoy themselves with electric guitars and open-air copulation. I have nothing against either of those pursuits, so long as I am not required to listen to the one nor to look at the other. In saying that I am sure that I speak for the people who live in the Isle of Wight. This is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request to make. The hon. Gentleman may have an enthusiasm for electric guitars and open-air copulation—he is entitled to it—but let him recognise that there are people who do not share his tastes and that their judgment on these matters is as good as his own. I invite him, therefore, on the basis of his own argument, to support the Bill.
      Mrs. Denis Howell: There might be some validity in the view expressed by the hon Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) were it not for the fact that Ministers in charge of various aspects of Government policy relating to these matters not only permit but actively encourage the holding of these large-scale assemblies in Hyde Park in the centre of our capital city. They do not need Measures like this to regulate the situation.
      Mrs. Woodnutt: Not for four nights.
      Mr. Howell: Perhaps not for four nights, but the time scale is not involved in the Bill. The Clause is not about prohibition or of reasonable regulation of the crowd—
      Mrs. Martin Maddan Mrs. Martin Maddan (Hove) rose—
      Mr. Howell: I will not give way, because I am trying to make what I regard as a substantial and serious point.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge gave the game away when he said, "If the Isle of Wight wishes to determine, as
      1288
      it does". The phrase he used was "as it does". In other words, he was saying that the Isle of Wight had no intention of applying the criteria laid down in the Bill to any future pop festival. I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) will tell us tonight that if a pop festival were adequately and properly regulated it would not be exceptionable to the Isle of Wight.
      Mrs. Woodnutt: I have said this repeatedly in all stages of these debates and I do not think I need repeat it.
      Mrs. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for doing so, if only for my education in this matter.
      Having listened to hon. Members on the Government benches, it would be a reasonable reaction for people to think that most hon. Members were completely opposed to assemblies of young people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That is the impression that one has in coming fresh to these matters and listening. Clearly, large numbers of hon. Members opposite are opposed to the principle of young people assembling for the purpose of enjoying themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If that is not the case, all one can say is that they have a very odd way of showing their support for such a proposition. If hon. Members opposite sit there making such interjections and comments, they cannot complain if one draws that conclusion.
      Mrs. Gorst: If the hon. Member had been present on Second Reading, he would have heard the arguments which have convinced those hon. Members on this side who have given their support. As, clearly, he neither attended the debate nor has read the report of it, he obviously draws the wrong impression.
      Mr. Howell: That is the sort of impertinent interruption which convinces me that I was wrong to give way to the hon. Member. I have read again this evening, for the second time, the whole of the Second Reading debate, so I hope that the hon. Member will take it from me that I have read in the cold light of dawn as well as the cold light of this

      1289
      evening what was said on Second Reading. I do not detract from the impression I have had sitting in the Chamber looking at and listening to the behaviour of hon. Members opposite.
      My point of substance, which is of considerable importance at present, is the whole question of regulating large assemblies. I have considerable sympathy with what the Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for that constituency are trying to do, but I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which was the Government's point at an earlier stage—I hope that they have not departed from it—that this is a matter of such growing importance that it should not be left to a piece of private legislation affecting one county in isolation from everybody else.
      New Clause 5 not only attempts to regulate the assembly of crowds in a way which I regard as very undesirable but gives to the local authority the right to estimate the numbers of people so assembled. I do not know how the local authority would carry out the right which subsection (6) gives. It would be extremely difficult to do it. The more that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight tells us that the Isle of Wight is a very small island with a small population and not used to having these large assemblies, the more impossible it will be for the local authority, with no experience of doing so, to assess the total numbers of people which subsection (6) requires.
      Why should the House of Commons—I believe it to be rather dangerous—seek to legislate for the control of a crowd of pop music fans in one county in isolation from all the other problems of large-scale assembly which at present face us?
      1.45 a.m.
      Only a short time ago we had people behaving in a way that the hon. Member finds exceptionable—and probably I would, too—and causing a number of deaths. Those deaths were caused because of the behaviour of a much smaller crowd than the crowds at the Isle of Wight, and in a much more confined space, in Glasgow. That was only one of three or four incidents affecting public safety. We now have a committee of inquiry, under Lord
      Wheatley, looking into that incident. Because they were so concerned about the problem of public safety that arose the Government asked one of their advisers—Mr. Walter Winterbottom—to visit almost every football ground to consult all the owners of those grounds. But when Mr. Winterbottom went round to look into these questions he discovered that he had no powers—apart from the powers of persuasion—to impose any standards upon the people who were attracting football crowds in much more emotional situations than operated in the Isle of Wight.
      In an earlier interjection, which was then rightly ruled out of order but is valid now, I mentioned that a large number of football supporters attending a match at Halifax gave greater offence to the people of that town than anything that the pop crowd did on the Isle of Wight. All the people in question seem to have assembled for the deliberate purpose of breaking the law—if we are to take the Press accounts at their face value. There have been other occurrences, notably at the ground of Newcastle United. Again, it was quite impossible to get ambulances, fire engines and police forces there to deal with the extremely ugly situation that occurred in a match that the club was playing with Glasgow Rangers only two or three years ago.
      Let us move away from the football scene and look at even larger assemblies of people, such as those which congregate at Silverstone, for the motor racing, which attracts crowds much greater than the pop festival crowds—crowds numbering about 250,000—in an area much smaller than that of the Isle of Wight. No powers of regulation exist, other than the normal public health powers, because the racing takes place on private property, and the powers of the police and public authorities to regulate what goes on on private property are much more limited than their general powers in respect of public order and public health in open spaces.
      In such places as motor racing circuits there are inadequate sanitation facilities, and inadequate public safety facilities. Although motor racing is well regulated by the R.A.C., there is a direct hazard to public safety merely by the nature of the events that take place and the speed of the cars.
      I could illustrate my point with other examples, but I think that I have said enough—[Interruption.] I am aware that nothing that I say will make any impression on hon. Members opposite; they are not interested in the merits of the argument. But I think that the Minister of State will be interested in the merits of the argument, for I know from my previous Ministerial experience in these matters that not a week passes but he has to deal with some event of public disorder of one kind or another arising out of our sporting preoccupations. It is very rare, on the other hand, that we have to deal with public disorder arising out of what one might term, in a loose sense, cultural pursuits, which I believe pop festivals to be in their own way. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at that, but that is how I look at it, and, having read the debate in the other place, I am interested to know many of their lordships drew that conclusion. I notice that it was said by a member on the bishops' bench that there was a deep spiritual purpose on the part of many of the people who assembled. That is not something which one should lightly discount.
      On the one hand, we must not transgress the power of public assembly, a power which we seek to cherish and which the House should never lightly disregard. On the other hand, there is the need to regulate large assemblies. Balancing those two matters, one comes again to the inescapable conclusion that the Government's advice at an earlier stage in these proceedings is right, that this is a matter for the Government and not for any one local authority to deal with by a Private Bill. Even though we pass the Bill tonight, as undoubtedly we shall, in view of the forces assembled on the benches opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."]—and the fact that many, like the hon. Member who said "Hear, hear", have no wish to deal with the merits of the case, we shall have to come back to this subject.
      Are we to come back to it local authority by local authority? Are the Halifaxes, the Manchesters, the Glasgows, the Newcastles to bring in their own Bills to regulate the behaviour of their own large assemblies on other occasions? Such a procedure only has to
      1292
      be stated to be seen to be absurd by anyone who understands the situation Plainly, this is a matter for regulation by the Government. I should support the Minister of State in any such proposal. I should support the people of the Isle of Wight, who say that they ought not to have large numbers of people suddenly descending upon them in an unregulated manner. The regulation of these matters, of public safety and public health, should apply to all large assemblies on all occasions. For that reason, in my judgment, the Bill ought not to go forward. It should be withdrawn so that the Government may introduce their own legislation, which—I speak only for myself on this occasion—I should like to think would have the support of both sides of the House.
      Mrs. Sharples: Perhaps I may leave the philosophical argument addressed to us by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and direct attention to Lords Amendment No. 4 and the new Clauses. As the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said, new Clause 5 is little different from the Clause passed by this House. From the Home Office point of view, the main alteration, which puts right one matter of objection which I expressed on Report, is the final sentence added to subsection (2) of new Clause 5:
      Provided that no term or condition relating to public order shall be imposed without the consent of the Chief Constable of the police authority".
      That meets our main objection.
      As regards the other Amendments made in the other place, there were five made on Third Reading: two were drafting Amendments, and the three others were as follows: first, that when the county council turned down a site on grounds of unsuitability it should tell the promoters why it thought the site unsuitable; second, that the powers to regulate pop festivals should not be operative till 1st December, 1971; and, third, that the county council should draw up a model set of terms and conditions to be available to any would-be promoter.
      All those Amendments are satisfactory to the Government, and I think that it would be right now for the House to reach a decision on the new Clauses.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
      Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

SECONDARY EDUCATION, DERBY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
2.3 a.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The hour is very late and on a day when Derby in particular has cause to rejoice because a vote this evening in the United States Senate has given great consulation to many of my constituents and has preserved their jobs, it may seem churlish of me to raise another problem in Derby, this time one that affects the problems of my constituents' children.
I begin by briefly reminding the Under-Secretary of State for Education and
The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 6.

Division No. 453.

AYES

[1.55 p.m.

Atkins, Humphrey

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Percival, Ian

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pink, R. Bonner

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Benyon, W.

Haselhurst, Alan

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Blaker, Peter

Havers, Michael

Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Hawkins, Paul

flees, Peter (Dover)

Boscawen Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Braine, Bernard

Hiley, Joseph

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Bray, Ronald

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Rost, Peter

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Russell, Sir Ronald

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Sharples, Richard

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

James, David

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Clegg, Walter

Kinsey, J. R.

Soref, Harold

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Kitson, Timothy

Speed, Keith

Cooke, Robert

Knox, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Costain, A. P.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Curran, Charles

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Sutcliffe, John

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen.James

Le Marchant, Spencer

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Drayson, G. B.

Longden, Gilbert

Tebbit, Norman

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Luce, R. N.

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth;

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

MacArthur, Ian

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Emery, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Evans, Fred

Maddan, Martin

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Eyre, Reginald

Maude, Angus

Vickers, Dame Joan

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Waddington, David

Fidler, Michael

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

Ward, Dame Irene

Fortescue, Tim

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Weatherill, Bernard

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Molyneaux, James

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Money, Ernle

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Goodhart, Philip

Monro, Hector

Wiggin, Jerry

Goodhew, Victor

More, Jasper

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Gorst, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Gower, Raymond

Noble, Rt. Hn, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Green, Alan

Normanton, Tom

Mr. Ray Mawby and

Gurden, Harold

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Mr. Mark Woodnutt.

NOES

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Driberg, Tom

Foot, Michael

Mr. Arthur Davidson and

Faulds, Andrew

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

Science of the overall situation in Derby relative to the sector A reorganisation. The borough council, which has been Conservative controlled since 1968, proposed to reorganise secondary education in Derby on comprehensive lines as part of a four-sector plan over four years. It is the first sector, sector A, which is to change over by September next in the case of non-selective schools.
On the success or failure of the first stage the scheme as a whole may be judged. It is unfortunately true that the timetable for sector A and the problems it involves have aroused the hostility of some parents in Derby and the misgivings of many more. It is, I regret, equally true to say that the delays in acquiring Ministerial approval for sector A reorganisation have set off a further train
of misunderstandings. The hon. Genileman will be aware that the controversial element in sector A concerns three schools, brought together by the enlargement of the borough in 1968, which cannot be amalgamated on one campus site without the complete replacement of the oldest of them: the Derwent school, which stands at some distance from the Darwin and Henry Cavendish schools Over the last three years there has been a great deal of juggling about possible amalgamation. All have had the same result—three into two will not go to provide an all-in 11 to 18 comprehensive education in this area.
As a result, three schemes have been submitted to the Department of Education and Science, all with some opposition from at least parent groups in the area. The first, proposed in 1969, was for an 11 to 13 junior high school at Derwent and an amalgamated senior high school formed from the other two. The second, in 1970, proposed separate senior high schools at Darwin and Henry Cavendish and the third, in 1971, the present scheme, which has just been approved, is for an 11 to 14 junior high school at Derwent and Darwin and a senior high school at Henry Cavendish.
This scheme was submitted to the Department under Section 13 of the 1944 Act on 16th April, this year. It is quite clear from public meetings which I have attended and from the petition which was presented to the Minister and from objections under Section 13 to the latest proposals that many people in my constituency are still unhappy with these latest proposals, or with any others which deny sector A all-through comprehensive education in all its schools. I shall return to those fears.
Nevertheless, if the present compromise were to receive the wide measure of public support which it needed if all-through reorganisation on non-selective lines in Derby were to be a success, it needed unequivocal support from the Department of Education and Science. Teachers had to be appointed by 31st May this year and the 17 headmasters involved had to organise their own explanatory meetings by the end of term and notify parents.
Alarmed by the silence of the Department, I wrote myself on 19th May to the
1296
Secretary of State begging her not to impose an impossible delay, but to say yes or no to the latest scheme. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, telling me that he could not hold out any hope of a decision by 31st May, which did not surprise me because the letter was dated 9th June. Soon after, the noble Lord was reported in the local Press by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) as being unlikely to accept the scheme. As the hon. Member intends to intervene in this debate, perhaps he will tell the House precisely what those comments meant and why approval eventually came, contrary to the report in the Press, on 28th June.
When approval for the scheme came, it was far too late. Derby education committee had circulated headmasters on 3rd June warning them that approval was still awaited and enclosing a draft circular to parents in the Sector A catchment area. Not surprisingly, some parents who received this circular before Ministry approval came through suspected the authority of stampeding the Minister with a fait accompli. This was an unwarranted suspicion but none the less it was as widespread at the time. The facts are otherwise, as I hope I shall show, but the end result has been to arouse even more acute anxiety among my constituents in the area.
Many fears, particularly about teaching standards and oportunities at Derwent school, are unfounded. I consider the headmaster of Derwent school a personal friend of mine and I have a high regard for the teaching staff of that school. Nevertheless, things are to some degree what they appear to be and the sort of worries and reservations which were expressed to me very forcibly about this scheme and the impossibility of having an all-through comprehensive system with a division among three schools have been paramount with most parents in the area.
I therefore ask the Minister not just about the unconscionable delays, but also about a practical solution. We have heard much recently about massive new programmes of public works. We are awaiting with interest the reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who is to ask later in the week what crumbs from this table may fall to the Derbyshire primary schools.
I suggest that the Department can help the Derby education authority by approving its submission for the conversion of the Derwent site to primary use at an estimated cost of £48,000 and the bringing forward of the construction of a replacement Derwent school on the Breadsall Hill Top site to provide a common campus for all three secondary schools to provide one all-through comprehensive. The cost of this additional building would be around £290,000 providing 530 cost places on present plans, the local authority fears that it will not be able to institute this building programme for seven or eight years. That is the complete life cycle in school of one whole generation of children.
As the Under-Secretary of State knows, it has submitted a scheme to the Department of Education and Science for the commencement of the building in 1973–74 and it is that scheme which I urge on the Minister tonight. The Minister may well say, "In that case, this should be the first priority in Derby", and I freely admit that it is not. The simple provision of roofs over heads in areas where expanding population has outrun all facilities has to come first in Derby.
But, like it or not, the Ministry is involved in the problems of comprehensive reorganisation in Derby. If the scheme is to work, it will do so only if the opening stages can be shown to be a success—and I passionately believe that they should be a success and can be a success. The Derby scheme needs nothing more than a reallocation of resources. If it provides overall equality of access to full secondary education for every child in the borough, it will be a fitting climax to the career of the Director of Education, Dr. Charles Middleton, who has guided the development of education in Derby throughout my lifetime.
The Minister will not need to be reminded of the well-know poem which begins,
"… for want of a nail, the shoe was lost;"
He can complete those lines for himself. If the reorganisation is to begin in suspicion and hostility, it cannot possibly work. If parents start moving from one part of the borough to another, a new form of segregation—always a lurking fear with non-selective education by districts—will develop. If that happens, the
future good will of the town towards four sector redevelopment phase by phase will be put in doubt.
It is my belief that basically this is a good scheme, that the four sectors ought to move roughly in the proper order of progress along the path to non-selective secondary education. I believe that there are only two schools involved over the whole county borough—one which we discussed, Derwent, and one in sector B—which would need to be replaced ahead of time to get the whole scheme through. I do not want to see parents suspicious of comprehensive reorganisation or moving themselves bag and baggage from one part of the town to another to avoid a particular part of a particular scheme which they may feel does not come up to scratch because it does not offer the full 11 to 18 facilities which they feel that the rest of the borough is scheduled to get. It is to prevent this that I earnestly commend the county borough development proposals for 1973–74 to the Minister.
2.14 a.m.
Mrs. Peter Rost: A large proportion of the constituents living within the sector A area are constituents of South-East Derbyshire and I have been at the reception end of the tremendous weight of complaints and opposition which have been building up over the past year or two since the original reorganisation scheme was proposed. I want to support the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in what he said: the main opposition has not been on the principle of comprehensive education. It has been simply on the principle that in a certain sector of sector A in the Breadsall and Chaddesden area there is a strong feeling that unequal educational opportunities are being offered under the proposals—that is unequal with the rest of the sector and certainly unequal with the rest of the proposals in the Derby borough. The opposition has been prolonged and substantial.
I have here a petition signed by 1,500 parents, nearly all in the Breadsall and Chaddesden area. That represents a substantial part of those affected. There have also been nearly 400 individuals letters, of which I have copies, which have been sent to the Minister. That is some evidence

1299
of the weight of protest. What investigations, what consultations have there been to deal with these objections?
On 8th March the official opposition organisation, which calls itself the Bread-sail and Chaddesden Parents Committee, sent a detailed letter to the Minister with the official objections to the scheme. I am absolutely shattered to have to announce to the House that it has had no reply. It had an acknowledgment after the letter was sent, but no reply—not until after the scheme was approved and towards the end of June. It has been seething with frustration and anger ever since. Why was this committee of parents and many teachers refused a reply? Why was it not invited or allowed to meet the Derby Borough Education Committee? Although it made numerous representations asking to be seen, it was ignored.
On Friday, 18th June I was invited to a meeting with the Under-Secretary and I was then given the opportunity of discussing the proposals which at that time had not been approved. They were still under consideration by the Minister. About a week later, on 25th June, the Minister finally notified approval of the scheme.
Mr. Whitehead: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his own intervention, by supplying the local newspaper with alleged facts that the scheme would be rejected, built up a great deal of anticipation in the county borough that the scheme would be scrapped and the parents were therefore under a misapprehension as to the real nature of the decision?
Mr. Rost: At the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I was given a clear impression that the scheme was not yet approved and that there were certain aspects of it which were regarded as unsatisfactory by the Minister. I have a letter from the Under-Secretary dated 21st July, after the scheme was approved, one line of which reads:
"As we discussed, there were indeed features about the authority's plan on which I shared some of your misgivings."
I was amazed and most disappointed when the scheme was finally approved. I am not suggesting that Derby Borough Education Committee jumped the gun or presented a fait accompli to the Minister or acted illegally, although that has been
1300
suggested, and the evidence would appear to point in this direction unless it is proved otherwise tonight. Why was this scheme finally approved, several days after it began to be implemented by Derby Borough?
The parents, my constituents, ought to be given an explanation. Why has the parents committee not been given answers to its other major queries? For example, how does the reorganisation improve the educational facilities when it offers less equal opportunities in the Breadsall and Chaddesden area of sector A? Why does sector A have to be the first sector to be implemented when it is the least suitable as it does not provide all-through 11–18 education in the area? How can it be regarded as a comprehensive scheme when it is only a zoned neighbourhood scheme and a butchered-up scheme at that?
Finally, why is it being implemented in sector A when the financial provisions necessary to provide equal educational opportunities have not been made available? These are questions to which my constituents are still awaiting answers. Until a purpose-built school with the necessary finance can be provided, how can equal educational standards, not only with those now available but with the rest of sector A and the rest of Derby be provided? It is disgraceful that the scheme should be implemented in this way, against so much opposition, without proper consultation and without the equality of educational opportunities that Circular 10/70 has always insisted should be provided?
2.20 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The House will appreciate that I have only 10 minutes in which to give as many answers as I can to the points raised in this debate.
First, I reject absolutely, completely and totally the views of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on the subject of delay. It was on 29th January that the local education authority published its proposals. There is a statutory two-month period, and lest anyone should think that these are pure formalities for my right hon. Friend, this case illustrates the contrary.
My right hon. Friend goes into these cases with the greatest care, for the very

1301
reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) asked me to go into. Those reasons include the representations which he was courteous enough to forward to her and about which the organisation to which he made reference wrote directly. It is precisely for that sort of reason that my right hon. Friend went into them carefully in this case.
We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for a local education authority to publish proposals on 29th January which it is intended to implement in the September of the same year. This is at least a reasonable question to ask, and it was very much in my right hon. Friend's mind. It is a quick timetable, is it not? I must remind the House that, as my right hon. Friend said on 21st April—I do not have time to quote the words she used in the House—she had 133 Section 13 proposals relating to secondary schools before her at that time.
I therefore make no apology for the fact that this was gone into in the greatest possible detail and care, for precisely the reasons my hon. Friend mentioned. I cannot say why Derby Borough did or did not act in a particular way. That is not my responsibility and that question must be directed elsewhere.
Then I am asked to hasten the replacement. The hon. Gentleman used a splendid phrase when writing to my noble Friend. He wrote to my noble Friend on 6th July courteously giving notice that he would raise this matter to see if it was possible
"for the Education Committee to spend their way out of the problem by bringing forward the date of the proposed rebuilding of one of the schools involved".
The hon. Gentleman's letter exhibited a remarkable attitude towards public expenditure. The Labour Government never spent—they proudly said this; they made a virtue of never spending—any money on reorganisation as such. I recall well when we were in opposition how, with considerable pride, they claimed not to be diverting any resources to reorganisation as such. The hon. Gentleman cannot now be heard to ask a different standard of us from that which he would have applied to his Government had he been supporting the Labour Party in Government now rather than in opposition.
1302
Our priorities are roofs over heads, as he said, and thereafter the replacement of pre-1903 primary schools for which there is a continuing need. I make no apology for these two priorities. I believe that they are absolutely right. As I said, the second relates to primary schools for which there is a continuing need, and the school to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not fall into that category.
I am asked about the letters written by the local education authority. There were two. The first one was written on 3rd June to the heads, and that is a carefully qualified letter making it clear that this condition did not have the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The second letter was on 18th June to the parents, and it was unqualified. My right hon. Friend deprecates the sending of a letter by the local education authority on the assumption that she will approve a scheme one way or the other. If local education authorities take risks in this way they may easily find they have made a severe miscalculation.
My right hon. Friend takes her duties in these matters very seriously—
Mrs. Whitehead Mrs. Whitehead rose—
Mrs. van Straubenzee: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I cannot give way. I have been left with very little time. I want to give this assurance to my hon. Friend. At the time she made her decision which she announced on 25th June my right hon. Friend was not aware that the unqualified letter of 18th June had been written. Therefore, when she made her decision she was not influenced by it. She was not, in layman's language, "bounced" by the local education authority into agreeing to this because the authority had already written. I give that absolute assurance. Section 13 procedures are no mere formality.
To come to the merits of the scheme, I accept absolutely that the authority's proposals for Derwent, Darwin and Cavendish represented a very difficult decision. The authority was not able to propose an all-through 11–18 comprehensive school because all three existing buildings would have to be used and they were too far apart to form part of a unitary school. I think that is common ground between all parties. The authority recognised that were not immediately available to establish the

1303
school on one site, and I have dealt with this point. I am told that an earlier plan to organise the school with a break at 13 had run up against much local opposition.
Inevitably, the authority, with the advice of the local teachers, came to the proposals that I have already referred to. the statutory proposals of 29th January, 1971, under which Derwent, Darwin were to admit the 11–14 age range and Cavendish the 14–16 age range. I accept absolutely that a break at 14, two years before the first public examination, is unwelcome generally speaking and it is this reservation to which my noble Friend was making reference when he had his interview with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East. This is one reason why the proposals had to be gone into with such care.
What my right hon. Friend had to do was to ask whether, if some of the drawbacks of changing school at 14 could be overcome by effective co-operation between the teachers in the three schools, there was perhaps something of value to be gained. The authority thought there was, and on balance—I do not suggest it was more than on balance—my right hon. Friend agreed.
I will give the House four reasons why she thinks so. First, all pupils in the area, and not just some of them, would share the facilities of Cavendish which I understand by common consent are excellent. Secondly, no one would hereafter spend all his secondary school life at Derwent. Thirdly—and this is important—the other schools in sector A would be able to develop unimpeded as comprehensive schools. I have studied the
1304
map of the area carefully in preparation for this debate, and I am referring to Olive Eden and Spondon about which there is no controversy, but they are to an extent linked in this context. Fourthly, the authority would be able to launch the first stage of its policy of ending selection. That would be the first stage that it could launch, and I understand that this has wide local support.
It was for these reasons that my right hon. Friend, on balance, understanding that it was an exceedingly difficult matter, and having weighed most carefully, and, in part, thereafter got criticised for having taken time to do so, the representations made to her as a result of the statutory plans, made her decision. I simply have to say that, the decision having been made, it is not revocable. That is why she has, without, I hope, discourtesy to my hon. Friend, decided that there really would be no point in her receiving a further deputation on the matter.
I want to end on a constructive note It is now up to the local authority whose proposal this was to demonstrate its belief that these three schools can be effectively organised against the day that resources become available for the establishment of an all-through comprehensive school in Breadsall, which I am sure is the objective towards which all of us should work. I hope that this brief debate may end on that constructive note and that we may be able as a team to work together for the good of the children of the area, which is what really matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Three o'clock a.m.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  U.S.S.R. (Outstanding Claims)
  U.S.S.R. (Outstanding Claims)
  Republic of Ireland (Official Talks)
  Republic of Ireland (Official Talks)
  Libya
  Libya
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Australia
  Australia
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Ruth Alexandrova)
  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Ruth Alexandrova)
  India and Pakistan
  India and Pakistan
  Charter Consolidated Limited (African Workers)
  Charter Consolidated Limited (African Workers)
  United Nations Disaster Relief Centre
  United Nations Disaster Relief Centre
  Chinese People's Republic
  Chinese People's Republic
  Hong Kong (School Fees)
  Hong Kong (School Fees)
  Uruguay (Kidnapped British Ambassador)
  Uruguay (Kidnapped British Ambassador)
  Pensions (Increase) Act
  Pensions (Increase) Act
  Overseas Aid (Select Committee Report)
  Overseas Aid (Select Committee Report)
  Developing Countries (Interest-free Loans)
  Developing Countries (Interest-free Loans)
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Aid (European Comparisons)
  Aid (European Comparisons)
WALES
  House Improvement Grants
  House Improvement Grants
  Nursery Schools and Classes
  Nursery Schools and Classes
  Welsh Council (Membership)
  Welsh Council (Membership)
  Flint and Denbigh (Health Centres)
  Flint and Denbigh (Health Centres)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Aluminium Company, Newport
  British Aluminium Company, Newport
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Oldham Area (Employment Prospects)
  Oldham Area (Employment Prospects)
  George Kent Limited
  George Kent Limited
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports (Noise)
  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports (Noise)
  Hotels (Registration and Classification)
  Hotels (Registration and Classification)
  Shipyards (Credit Facilities)
  Shipyards (Credit Facilities)
  Ed Scharwaechter AG
  Ed Scharwaechter AG
  Oil Supplies (Continental Shelf)
  Oil Supplies (Continental Shelf)
  Inclusive Tour Holidays
  Inclusive Tour Holidays
  Compass Club (Charter Flight)
  Compass Club (Charter Flight)
  Polish Coal
  Polish Coal
  Iron and Steel Imports
  Iron and Steel Imports
  International Computers Limited
  International Computers Limited
  U.N.C.T.A.D.
  U.N.C.T.A.D.
  International Life Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd.
  International Life Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd.
  Iron and Steel Exports
  Iron and Steel Exports
  Television Repairs (Charges)
  Television Repairs (Charges)
  Risca Urban District Council Area
  Risca Urban District Council Area
  Dan Air Comet Crash (Spain)
  Dan Air Comet Crash (Spain)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax Centre
  Value-Added Tax Centre
ENVIRONMENT
  Bridges (Tolls)
  Bridges (Tolls)
  Roads (Lighting)
  Roads (Lighting)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Professional Footballers' Association (Industrial Relations)
  Professional Footballers' Association (Industrial Relations)
  M4
  M4
  River Don (Pollution)
  River Don (Pollution)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Bus Companies
  Bus Companies
  Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Disabled Persons (Transport)
  A645 (Goole)
  A645 (Goole)
  House Condition Survey
  House Condition Survey
  Construction Industry (Computers)
  Construction Industry (Computers)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Abergele and Llanfair Talhaiarn (Flood Damage)
  Abergele and Llanfair Talhaiarn (Flood Damage)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Sire Licensing
  Sire Licensing
CIVIL SERVICE
  Peterlee
  Peterlee
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Physically Handicapped Children
  Physically Handicapped Children
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Relations Bill
  Industrial Relations Bill
  Pontypridd and Rhondda (Industrial Rehabilitation Centre)
  Pontypridd and Rhondda (Industrial Rehabilitation Centre)
  Lanarkshire (Retraining Facilities)
  Lanarkshire (Retraining Facilities)
  Hamilton, Blantyre and Larkhall
  Hamilton, Blantyre and Larkhall
  Registered Unemployed
  Registered Unemployed
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Nail Guns
  Nail Guns
  Powerboats (Safety of Bathers)
  Powerboats (Safety of Bathers)
  Peterlee
  Peterlee
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Giro (Investigation)
  Giro (Investigation)
  UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS LIMITED
  UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS LIMITED
SCOTLAND
  Regional Authority Areas (Public Works Schemes)
  Regional Authority Areas (Public Works Schemes)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Public Works Programme
  Public Works Programme

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

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCTS AND COST OF LIVING COMPARISONS
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can supply yearly figures, for each year from 1953 onwards (including O.E.C.D. or other reliable forecasts for the current year), which will convey the following information:

(a) the G.N.P. of each of the six E.E.C. countries, the United Kingdom, and each of the EFTA countries;

(b) the yearly percentage increase or decrease compared with the preceding year;

(c) similar figures expressed in terms per head of the population and the working population;

(d) an index figure for each year showing the cost of living in each country as compared with a basic figure of 100 for the United Kingdom;

(e) the value of Marshall Aid to each country during the period.

the figures to be expressed in pounds sterling, U.S. dollars or some other comparable currency.]

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AT MARKET PRICES PER HEAD OF THE WORKING POPULATION (Dollars)

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

Belgium

2,770

2,820

2,910

3,120

3,310

3,500

3,750

4,150

4,520

4,820

5,160

5,430

5,900

France

2,830

2,910

2,810

3,110

3,390

3,770

4,180

4,600

4,900

5,270

5,630

6,120

6,680

Germany

1,970

2,250

2,280

2,730

3,090

3,340

3,560

3,900

4,220

4,500

4,640

5,060

5,680

Italy

1,290

1,390

1,500

1,680

1,850

2,110

2,470

2,690

2,930

3,210

3,510

3,780

4,150

Luxembourg

3,280

3,280

3,360

3,660

3,810

3,820

4,040

4,640

4,820

5,000

5,140

5,610

6,360

Netherlands

2,230

2,280

2,440

2,680

2,910

3,090

3,320

3,840

4,250

4,550

5,000

5,470

6,030

Austria

1,500

1,550

1,630

1,840

2,030

2,170

2,340

2,550

2,780

3,020

3,260

3,480

3,810

Denmark

2,440

2,670

2,840

3,110

3,450

3,620

4,080

4,520

4,840

5,180

5,220

5,910

Norway

2,760

2,760

2,940

3,110

3,360

3,600

3,870

4,250

4,700

5,100

5,550

5,920

6,330

Portugal

660

670

720

780

830

880

940

1,030

1,150

1,250

1,410

1,580

1,740

Sweden

3,080

3,180

3,340

3,570

3,850

4,120

4,400

4,940

5,430

5,840

6,330

6,610

7,150

Switzerland

2,940

3,060

3,250

3,450

3,770

3,940

4,250

4,610

5,030

5,490

5,880

6,340

6,870

United
Kingdom

2,490

2,630

2,760

2,880

3,040

3,170

3,340

3,600

3,850

4,080

4,240

4,000

4,280

Figures prior to 1957 (1958 in the case of Denmark) are not available on a comparable basis.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, most of the information sought by the noble Lord is available in O.E.C.D. publications, and I think it would be wasteful to reproduce these extensive tables in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With permission, however, I shall circulate in the Report the titles of the publications and reference from which the noble Lord can obtain the information that he seeks, together with such information as is not contained in O.E.C.D. publications.
Following is the information referred to:
Most of the information is given in National Accounts of O.E.C.D. Countries, 1953–1969, The G.N.P. at market prices, converted to U.S. dollars at the official exchange rate for each year, is given for each country both in total and per head of population on page 10. The corresponding figures at constant prices are given in the form of index numbers on page 11. The yearly changes in G.N.P. at constant prices compared with the preceding year are given from page 400 onwards. The National Accounts volume does not give figures per head of the working population but these have been calculated using data from the O.E.C.D. publication of Labour Force Statistics and these are given below. Price indices for private consumption, taking 1963 = 100 for each country, are given on page 13 of the National Accounts volume, but it is not possible to use these to compare the level of prices in other countries with that in the United Kingdom because of the differences in the patterns of consumption and of internal prices between one country and another. Figures of G.N.P. for 1970 are not yet available. Forecasts for the present year for major O.E.C.D. countries are contained in the O.E.C.D. publication. Economic Outlook, published in July. In the case of the United Kingdom, the O.E.C.D. forecast was prepared before the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on July 19, when he said that he expected a rate of growth of output of 4 to 4½ per cent. between the first halves of 1971 and 1972. There were no commitments in respect of Marshall Aid for the years after 1952, and I have no record of any payments which may have been made during the period from 1953 onwards.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, thank the noble Earl for that reply. But does he not think it is calculated to arouse suspicions in the minds of many people who may be favourable to entry into the Economic Community, but who may be tilted the other way by the refusal of the Government to come out straightforwardly with all the information, impartially and objectively, on this question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think suspicions would be aroused only in the minds of the suspicious. If I had answered in extenso the five questions put to me by the noble Lord, I think it might have taken me to well past three o'clock.
LORD LEATHER LAND: My Lords, it would be time well spent. I thank the noble Earl.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of the implications involved in this particular Question, is one to assume that we have not attached to this House a research department through which such information could be made available to Members of the House and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as requested?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that is another question. Before leaping to conclusions, it might be advisable for noble Lords to wait and see the information which is provided in the OFFICIAL REPORT as promised in my Answer.

CHINA: PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF AMBASSADORS
2.38 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can report on the progress of negotiations with Peking for full diplomatic representation between this country and the People's Republic of China.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, discussions about an exchange of Ambassadors have taken place between Her Majesty's Goverment and the People's Republic of China at intervals since 1950. Following the improvement in our relations with
794
China, these discussions were resumed early this year and are continuing. The content of the discussions is confidential. I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a further statement.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him what preconditions were made, and what obstacles arose during the course of these negotiations which may have held up their successful outcome?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as these negotiations are at present continuing I think it would probably be unwise if we went into too much detail.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the Government will recognise the imaginative step taken by the President of the United States in visiting China, and that, in the light of the much improved atmosphere between this country and China, Her Majesty's Government will make special efforts to bring about this recognition.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords. Of course we accept the new state of affairs that has occurred, and we are taking this into account. This is underlying the consideration which is being given to the matter.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the existence of an independent, freedom-loving China is a cause which this country ought to abandon?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are concerned that all countries which are freedom loving should have the right to express their freedom in the best possible way. We are merely concerned to see that China is as approriately represented as possible.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would it not be most unfortunate if the opening of these discussions led to Taiwan being overtaken by the same fate at Tibet?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it is that kind of consideration that is underlying the detailed concern which is being given to this very point. There are arguments on both sides; the one which the noble Lord has brought forward is one of them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that we are represented in China by a Chargé d'Affaires, and it is merely a question about what status our representation should he? It does not involve the question of Taiwan at all.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, for a long period of time we have been concerned about an exchange of Ambassadors, and discussions are taking place to see whether this is possible.

E.E.C. AND IMPORT PRICES FOR EGGS
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: 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, so far as the enlarged Common Market is concerned, minimum import prices for eggs, which at present protect the home industry from imports below the cost of production, will be removed completely on the first day of the transitional period; furthermore, whether exports of eggs from the E.E.C. to the United Kingdom will be subsidised to the extent of the difference in foodstuffs cost between the Common Market and this country.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, under the terms of the agreement reached in Brussels, minimum import prices for eggs would be replaced during the first year of the transition by the system of threshold prices and levies-on-imports from third countries which are already used in the existing Community. During the transition, trade in eggs between members of the enlarged Community would attract subsidies or levies to the extent of the difference in feedingstuffs-costs. These subsidies and levies will be phased out as cereal feed prices are aligned during the transition.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I ask whether I am right in understanding that, in addition to this small subsidy which is repre-
796
sented by the feedingstuffs difference, suppliers in the Common Market will be able from the beginning of the transitional period to send their eggs to this country at any price, irrespective of the cost of production, whereas up till now we have always been able to apply to the Board of Trade for dumping restrictions?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course the eventual idea is that there should be a free market in eggs within the Community. During the transitional period there will also be a free market, and in that respect other countries may send eggs here and we may export our eggs to other countries. I have no reason to believe that the British egg industry, which is highly competitive, will not be able to fulfil this object.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that over-production is current in the E.E.C. and is on the edge here? It is rather difficult for an industry to be put straight away into a state of surplus on both sides.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, I entirely take the point of the noble Lord that there has been a surplus. But, as he probably knows better than most, the egg industry is one which acts rather like a yo-yo, and by the time we enter the transitional period, which will not be until 1973, different circumstances may obtain.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the position of Northern Ireland farmers will be considered before the minimum import prices of eggs are abolished?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that the position of all farmers, whether they are in England or in Northern Ireland, will be considered.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am fully cognisant of almost every clause in the Treaty of Rome and that I can find no reference to a yo-yo?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has tried translating it.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION
LORD ILFORD: 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 it is expected that a Report may be received from the Royal Commission on the Constitution.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, it is not yet known when the Commission will report.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which was not substantially different from the Answer that he gave me to a similar Question six months ago. May I ask my noble friend whether it is not highly desirable, in view of the important bearing that the Report from this Commission is likely to have upon the reorganisation of local services and local boundaries in certain parts of England, that it should be available in ample time before negotiations start in earnest?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Commission is hard at work and is anxious to complete its task as soon as possible. But this is a major inquiry of very far-reaching significance, and the Government do not believe it would be right to tie the Commission down by requiring it to report by a given date.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
2.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I
798
beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause
".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to prepare from time to time, and cause to be published in such manner as seems to the Authority appropriate for informing persons appearing to the Authority to be concerned, plans relating to the provision and development of aerodromes and air navigation services in the United Kingdom with due regard to the relationship and interaction between air transport and other forms of transport and the Authority shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of any plan prepared by it under this section.
(2) Plans under this section shall be in such form and for such periods as the Authority and the Secretary of State may from time to time agree: and in preparing any such plan the Authority shall consult with the Secretary of State and with any local authority appearing to it to be concerned to a significant degree by the plan and with any other bodies who appear to the Authority to be able to contribute substantially to the formulation of the plan and shall have regard—

(a) to any considerations to which the Secretary of Stale may from time to time draw their attention, including in particular, considerations of national or regional transport policy;

(b) to the development of aviation technology which can contribute to the improvement of the level of air transport services and of the effect of such services upon the community, and to the needs of general aviation.

(3) In this section—

" local authority"has the meaning ascribed to it by section 29(10) of this Act;

" general aviation"means all civil flying except that performed by a holder of an air transport licence."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not take up a great deal of time with this Amendment. During the Committee and Recommittal stages, I made the point that we needed for this country someone or some organisation that would accept responsibility for the future planning of our airports policy, and it seemed to me that the Civil Aviation Authority was the right organisation to shoulder that responsibility. I sensed that on both sides of the Committee there was agreement with that proposition. I tabled an

799
Amendment which I thought reflected the general wishes of the Committee, and I made reference to the need for the varying interests to be consulted in the preparation of the kind of plan which I had in mind. Since then the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his advisers have been kind enough to consider the problem, and there is another Amendment on the Marshalled List.
For my part, I shall be glad to hear what the noble Lord has to say about the difference between my Amendment and the Amendment which he has tabled on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. If he will give me an assurance that what I am seeking to achieve is, in fact, achieved by his Amendment, then I shall be glad to withdraw mine and accept his. I shall be particularly glad if he will have regard to what was said by noble Lords behind him and on the Liberal Benches, as well as by those on our side of the House, about the need to consult the different organisations concerned, such as the local authorities and so on. There appears to be no reference to this point in the Amendment which he has tabled, and I shall be glad if he will clarify that point. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall be glad to respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and deal with his Amendment No. 1 by also speaking to my own Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, although the substance of the matter is contained in Amendment No. 3. The Government accept that advice about aerodromes, in the sense of drawing up what is generally referred to as a national airports plan, is a matter of sufficient importance to merit specific mention in the Bill, and they therefore fully accept the intention behind the noble Lord's Amendment.
We have, however, put down our own alternative to the same end for two main reasons, and this, I think, will meet the assurances for which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked. First of all, as I think I said at an earlier stage, the advisory functions of the Authority, as opposed to the executive functions, are dealt with in Clause 33. This therefore seems to be the right place in which to insert this additional provision. As I think the noble Lord will agree, it is an
800
advisory function, because the execution of this plan cannot be vested exclusively in the Civil Aviation Authority. Moreover, since these Amendments are concerned with a special case within the general context of Clause 33, it is necessary to make some cross-reference between the new provision and subsection (1) of that clause to make it clear that the new provision does not prejudice the generality of the existing provision.
The second reason why we lean somewhat towards this particular way of meeting the noble Lord's intention is that we believe that the Government's alternative in fact does all that the noble Lord's version is intended to do but that the details are left, as I think his own Amendment recognises, to be spelt out in the guidance in Clause 3(2), where, as I have already said at earlier stages, we were intending to spell this matter out. Some of the points which he has included in his Amendment can, I think, be dealt with there, and among them the necessity to consult with local authorities closely concerned.
There is one further point which I should like to make: that there will be nothing to prevent the Authority publishing its studies in this or in any other field, and it will be able to set out its own advice in whatever form it thinks appropriate. Clause 33 specifically requires the Authority to provide advice and assistance. However, as I explained during Committee, at an earlier stage, the extent and the method by which the Authority's recommendations might be implemented will in this particular case be for the Government to determine. I think, therefore, it would be useful to impose on the Secretary of State the duty to publish such matters, as it will thereby be possible to add any views he may have on them. I think that that will be appropriate when we are talking about a national airports plan. I hope that with these assurances and explanations the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment and transfer his support in this respect to the Government Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should very much like to welcome this new Amendment by the Government which we are discussing at the same time as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. To

801
spell this out as a duty on the Authority is definitely a step forward. May I merely express the pious hope that, now that it is set down as a duty, we shall sooner rather than later actually get a national airports plan?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am disposed to respond to the invitation of the noble Lord. There are just two further observations I would make. First, it seems a little odd that Her Majesty's Government have left it to the last stage of the Second Chamber before inserting anything in this Bill about the planning ahead of airports. However, better late than never; and I am pleased to think that we have had some part to play in bringing the Government forward on this point. The second remark I think I ought to make is this. We had a good deal of discussion at earlier stages about the difficulty, as I see it, of this Authority paying its way one year with another. I should like to emphasise that this fresh duty which we are now placing upon the Authority is not one which will attract any revenue at all. It will be an essential duty, but it will not be a profitable one; and I hope that that will be taken into account. With those remarks, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Provision by the Authority of assistance etc. for Secretary of State and others]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 30, leave out (" the following subsection ") and insert (" subsection (2) of this section ")—(Lord Sandford).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 34, at end insert—
(" (1A) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, it shall also be the duty of the Authority—

(a) to consider what aerodromes are in its opinion likely to be required from time to time in the United Kingdom in addition to or in place of or by way of alteration of existing aerodromes; and

(b) to make recommendations to the Secretary of State arising out of its consideration of that matter;

802
and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish the recommendations (except any of them of which the publication appears to him unnecessary) in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing them to the notice of the public.")—(Lord Sandford).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 35, leave out (" the preceding subsection ") and insert (" subsection (1) of this section ").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 7, after (" section ") insert (" and in performing the duty imposed on it by subsection (1A) of this section ")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Additional provisions relating to constitution etc. of Civil Aviation Authority]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 66, line 10, leave out from (" on ") to second (" is ") in line 11 and insert (" such subsequent date as the Secretary of State may determine ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and it wilt be convenient to consider with it Amendment No. 7. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove a technical defect in the existing text. We had some difficulty here at an earlier stage. The position now is that, without the Amendment that I am moving, the paragraph would require the Authority to make an offer to each person who is employed by a relevant body at the passing of the Act and on the date when an offer is made to them. This would mean that the Authority could not ascertain the persons to whom the offer must be made until the offer was actually made, so that in effect there could be no offer, which is clearly not the intention. It is therefore desirable to amend the paragraph so as to define the class of persons to whom the offer is to be made by reference to their employment at a date determined by the Secretary of State instead of by reference to their employment at the date of the offer. Amendment No. 7 is consequential to Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must just say how gratifying it is to learn that the noble Lord's legal advisers are not always infallible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 16, leave out from (" shall ") to (" not ") in line 17.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitional provisions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 86, line 53, at end insert—
(" (2) In the application of the preceding sub-paragraph to Northern Ireland, for the reference to the said Act of 1963 and the references to section 13(1) of the said Act of 1965 there shall be substituted respectively a reference to the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 and references to section 23(1) of the last-mentioned Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this last Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carrington. The purpose of the Amendment is to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with paragraph 4, thus ensuring that employees of the Air Registration Board in Northern Ireland are treated in the same way as their colleagues in Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I think we can now safely say that this Bill has been improved in a number of respects since it has been in your Lordships' House. All I should like to do at this stage is to express the thanks of the Government to a number of noble Lords who have contributed to this: to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, particularly in respect to the improvements which have been made, not without some travail, to Clause 3(1) and elsewhere as regards safeguarding the interests of travellers. The only thing which divided us was the way in which this should be done. I think we were united, and the
804
number of occasions on which we expressed out common ground on objectives became rather tedious. We were considerably divided as to ways and means, but we are grateful for what has been achieved. Again, we are grateful to the same noble Lord for the improvements to Clause 24, the clause which has to do with air transport licensing appeals; to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in respect of the improvements on Clause 27 concerning the Airworthiness Requirements Board; to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in respect of the improvement and extension of the powers in designating aerodromes in order to control the noise nusance arising from them, which was achieved in Clause 29 and to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, in regard to the Amendments to the cause affecting the interests of staff both of the Air Registration Board and the Civil Service on transfer.
My Lords, the Bill has translated into legislation recommendations of the Edwards Committee, and I think that this is perhaps an appropriate moment to register again our gratitude to them for the work they did. I hope noble Lords will agree that as a result of this legislation there will be benefits to British civil aviation as a whole, to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in particular, and considerable improvements in the further evolution of the machinery of Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that a word or two of good wishes from this side of the House are called for. So many hopes had been pinned on a new legislative framework for civil aviation that I am bound to say that when the Bill arrived there was a good deal of disappointment. The blame, I am told, can be placed largely upon the lawyers, who appear to feel that caution is better than courage and restriction better than enlarged responsibility. However, we are grateful to them for what they have done in producing this Bill. I have specially in mind, as far as the disappointment is concerned, the vexed question of appeals procedure. However, as the

805
noble Lord has said, the Bill was improved in another place and we can claim that it was further improved in this House. I only regret that the discussion was further cramped by inadequate time at the tail end of the Session. I am grateful to the Minister for Trade, Mr. Noble, for so readily listening to the representations that we made and also to his advisers for the efforts that they made to meet our point of view. I say"our ", because if ever there was a combined effort from the Government, the Opposition, the Cross Benches and the Liberal Benches, it was on this Bill. I should like to pay my own tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for the informed and helpful part he played and also to say how much I admired the sturdy way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, on the Cross Benches stuck to what he thought were points of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and his friends also greatly helped. I have a particular reason to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Burntwood for the way in which he looked after the interests of the staff as we saw them.
There it is. We have a Bill, an improved Bill, and all that we can now do is to wish it well. We have reached this stage as a result of two noble Lords taking over in somewhat difficult circumstances and I should like to express my appreciation and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the manly, patient and courteous way in which they dealt with all our criticisms throughout the later stages of the Bill. I am grateful to them.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, may I add a few words to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? This has been a very long haul. It was as long ago as November 5, 1967, that the Edwards Committee came into being and it reported on April 1, 1969—it was a Committee that had a nice taste in dates. Through all that long period there has been a certain anxiety in the aviation world which is affected by what was originally proposed by the Committee. I suppose that if a year ago I had tried to visualise myself speaking to your Lordships on this matter I should have imagined myself intoning a threnody in lamentation of the passing of the Air
806
Registration Board. I am delighted to find that I do not feel like that at all. Most of those concerned with this matter who once swallowed the big pill that there is going to be a Civil Aviation Authority, have in the end been most pleasurably surprised at the way the whole thing worked out. All that remains now, as we have a skeleton plan for this Authority (which at this stage is about as good as it can be) is to make the new machinery work. I am sure that everybody concerned will do that with the utmost good will.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING BILL
3.7 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: 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 Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1. [Housing improvement in development areas and intermediate areas]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, after (" area ") insert (" or carried out in the designated area of a New Town which is partly within such a local government area ").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid anomalies in the designated areas of New Towns. It can best be explained by way of example. In Lancashire, in and around the whole county borough of Warrington, a New Town is being built. The designated area has a population of 130,000. Of these, 70,000 are in the old county borough and 60,000 are in the surrounding countryside. The surrounding countryside is in one of two rural districts, the rural district of Runcorn and the rural district of Warrington. In the extreme West of both of these rural districts is the development area; so that in the West

807
both of these rural districts are in the development area, and as the Bill stands the whole of these rural districts will get the benefits of the additional grants. Therefore it follows that in the designated area of the New Town the centre or core of the County Borough of Warrington will not get the benefits of this Bill but the surrounding countryside will get the benefits.
Let us look at the effects. One of the objects of the scheme for a New Town is to redevelop and improve the whole county borough. The county borough is acting in the spirit and letter of Government policy. It has a special team on house improvements and it is estimated currently that in the county borough there are 5,000 houses which are worthy of improvement. But if the Bill goes into law as it stands, without this Amendment, the additional grants would be denied to the county borough but would go to the surrounding area. This, I suggest, is inconsistent with one of the objects of the scheme for the New Town. There are property owners and agents of property owners who have properties both inside and outside the county borough. They will tend to use such funds as are available outside the borough to get the additional grants, rather than inside the borough where there is the greatest need.
Furthermore, as in many boroughs of this size, those in the higher income group employed in the borough live outside the borough, while those who are lower paid and employed in the borough live inside the borough. Consequently, if the Bill is passed without this Amendment, the higher paid living outside the borough will get the benefit of the additional grants, while the lower paid living inside the borough will be denied those additional grants. For example, a managing director or a professional man living outside the borough could buy a country cottage and get the benefit of these grants, while a lower paid man living inside the borough would be denied the additional grants for his house inside the borough.
This is an anomaly. The effect of the Amendment is to make clear that where any part of the designated area of a New Town is within a local government area which receives the grant, then the whole
808
of the designated area shall be treated alike and shall receive the grant. I hope that the Minister will admit that the circumstances I have outlined show a gross anomaly, that this Amendment would avoid that anomaly, and accordingly that he will be able to accept the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I think that in answer to this Amendment, and probably to all five Amendments which we are dealing with to-day, I shall need to stress particularly to the Committee the limited purpose and special purpose for which this Bill has been introduced. It is limited in two respects. It is limited in point of time to the two years beginning on June 23 this year. It is limited geographically to the assisted areas, the development areas and intermediate areas, with one relatively minor adjustment.
This is not the Bill in the Government's programme which is primarily intended to relieve the areas of greatest housing stress. That Bill is the one to be introduced early in the next Session, of which details are set out in the Government's White Paper, A Fair Deal for Housing. I say that at the beginning because I do not for a moment disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, about the importance of getting on with housing in Warrington, and Warrington New Town, or the value of what the team there is doing; but this is not the Bill which is intended to bear directly on that problem, which is recognised to be a very considerable one in Warrington and in many other places in the country which will not be affected by or benefit from this legislation.
This legislation has a purpose limited in time and space, as I have set out, and is designed to accelerate the rate of improvement grant in the assisted areas to match that which prevails in the rest of the country. I think that if that point is fully taken the anomalies, which I fully admit exist in a particularly sharp form in Warrington New Town, can be seen as justified.
To go into the matter in some detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques said, the Amendment would undoubtedly widen the scope of the Bill in a way we are seeking not to widen it (for the reasons I have given) by applying its provisions to the designated area of a

809
New Town if it happens to be within a local government area which itself is wholly within an assisted area. Its effect would be to bring in the County Borough of Warrington. We do not deny for a moment any of the housing problems of the County Borough of Warrington. If the County Borough of Warrington in the earlier and different legislation had been included in the Merseyside development area, of course this Amendment would not have been necessary because Warrington and its housing problems would have been embraced within the purpose of this Bill. But arguments on which areas should and which should not be classed as development or intermediate areas fall for discussion on regional development policy or development area policy and do not come within the scope of discussion in Committee on this Housing Bill.
As I say, we fully admit that anomalies are thereby created between the treatment accorded by this Bill to Warrington County Borough and its surrounding districts, but regrettable as they are unavoidable within the context of this Bill, an attempt to remedy them by Amendments to this Bill would lead to far greater and even more numerous anomalies. Development areas, as the Committee knows, are based on areas of local employment exchanges, not on local government areas. They do not by any means necessarily change their size with areas of borough and district councils which have responsibility for housing and area improvements. This applies particularly to local government districts, many of which are cut in two by the boundaries of development areas.
However, from the point of view of efficiency and uniform administration of improvement grants, which is a housing function, it is clearly desirable that the same rate of grant should apply throughout the whole area of a local authority which is concerned with that part of its area which lies in a development area. To that extent we have widened the provisions of the Bill, but I am sure that it would be wrong to go beyond that. That is why the provisions of the Bill extend to the whole of a local government area even if only part of it is within a development area, and in turn
810
it is the reason why some districts surrounding Warrington will enjoy the preferential treatment given by the Bill.
I hope that this serves to show why it is illogical to relate the provisions of this Bill to areas of local authorities for the purposes of the Housing Act 1969. It would not be appropriate to have a different criterion for this Bill which merely increases the amount of the financial assistance. I hope that that explanation—although I am sure it will not satisfy the feeling of the noble Lord that an anomaly has occurred here because undoubtedly it has—will serve to explain to him why we cannot seek to rectify that anomaly in this Bill for it would lead to greater anomalies.
LORD SHINWELL: Naturally I am not interested in this particular part of the country, but a New Town has been mentioned and I am a little curious to understand why; because in my old constituency there is a New Town. Is not the position that the housing arrangements of a New Town are quite different from those for which a local authority is responsible? The New Towns for housing purposes, so far as I understand, come within the ambit of the Commission responsible for their administration; they have special housing arrangements and special financial provisions. Is not that the reason why this anomaly exists?
LORD SANDFORD: That is not exactly the reason, but what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said certainly has a bearing on this matter. From Warrington's point of view there is an anomaly in that Skelmersdale will benefit from this Bill. That is because it is a New Town linked with the Merseyside development area, and there are provisions in the Industrial Development Act 1966 which create that link. This will, as it were, enable Skelmersdale, linked as it is with Merseyside which is a development area, to benefit from the provisions of the Bill; but that does not apply in the case of Warrington.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Having represented Warrington as Member of Parliament for about seven years, I should like to ask why in this respect Warrington was excluded and not treated in the same way.
LORD SANDFORD: I am not quite sure of what the noble Baroness is asking me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord said that Skelmersdale was included in the Merseyside area and therefore would not be excluded, as Warrington is. Why is this exception made?
LORD SANDFORD: I did not say that it was included but that it was linked. Every New Town has a particular function—for instance, Milton Keynes will be concerned with overspill from London and Skelmersdale was linked with Merseyside for the purpose of receiving overspill and transfer of population. Warrington was linked with Manchester, which is not a development area. That is the reason for the different treatment of the two towns.
LORD JACQUES: I was not arguing that Warrington should be part of a development area or intermediate area. I fully understand that it is for administrative convenience for the additional grant to be paid to local authority areas, but I still fail to see any reason why the Amendment could not be accepted, so that where the designated area is in part in a local authority area which receives grant, the whole of that designated area should not receive the grant. The cost to the Government would be negligible and it would get rid of anomalies which amount to an intolerable injustice.
LORD SANDFORD: Unfortunately, this could not be done in respect of Warrington without a considerable number of very similar cases having to be faced and the whole scope of the Bill would be enormously widened.
LORD JACQUES: I did not know that we had so many New Towns as to cause the scope of the Bill to be so enormously widened. If there are other cases like Warrington, then they should all be treated alike and get these grants.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Lord argued originally that we had problems of housing shortages which ought to be dealt with and on that basis there would not be a case for extending the Bill in favour of New Towns, which were designed to relieve housing shortages elsewhere, but if there was an extension
812
to be based on the noble Lord's argument, we should have to think of a wider extension than just to the New Towns.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.23 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(" (a) no work on the improvements has started before the relevant date, and ").
The noble Lord said: I regret that I was unable to be here on the Second Reading of the Bill, but the point underlying this Amendment was dealt with to some extent by the noble Lords, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale and Lord Airedale. I have been in correspondence and in conversation with my noble friend Lord Sandford for some weeks, so he will not be altogether surprised that I have put down an Amendment. Before he starts to answer in the same way as he answered the last Amendment, may I say that this Amendment does not widen the scope of the Bill. It certainly does not widen the scope so far as area is concerned and when it comes to wording, it does not widen that either.
The purpose of the Amendment is simple. According to the Bill it is on or after June 23, which is the relevant date, that an application must be made to get the new terms. The Amendment seeks to say that the relevant date shall apply, not to the date of application, but to the day on which the work starts on the improvement. I must declare a direct personal interest. I am in the unfortunate position of owning a number of rural cottages. I say"unfortunate position ", because, as any landlord knows, most of these cottages show a considerable loss. The way I have always worked matters is this. When a cottage falls in, as they do periodically, I have a look at the question of bringing it up to modern standards before re-letting. In most cases, with the grant, it is more or less a financial proposition, if one does not take too much account of the future, for they are practically all rent restricted and let at very low rents. Occasionally, it simply is not a financial proposition to modernise a cottage at all. I have one cottage that has been empty for several years and even the local authority surveyor agrees with me that it is not a

813
worthwhile proposition. It is just standing empty.
The cottage I want to use as an example for my argument is one that fell vacant last year. It is a good stone cottage and the exterior is perfectly sound, though I think it probably needs a damp course. It has very few modern amenities and in my view it is not fit to be let again until it is brought up to modern standards. At the beginning of this year we started the usual rigmarole. I had a long talk with the local authority so as to get an outline of what work was needed to bring it up to modern standards. Then I got tenders from various builders and when all that was ready I applied to the local authority for a grant. At the beginning of June, before the scheme was announced, the local authority offered a grant. They wanted a little extra work done before they finally agreed to my application and that was all right. My agent and I then went into the proposition in detail and came to the conclusion that it was not a financial proposition to do the modernisation of this cottage, taking into account the rent we should be likely to obtain and the amount of work that had to be done. So I gave orders that the work was not to be started and the cottage was not to be let but should remain empty, which I think was a sensible thing to do.
Shortly after that, this new scheme was announced, so I saw the local authority and asked whether it might be worth while going ahead on the new terms. They said that that seemed sensible but they did not quite know what attitude the Minister was going to take about it. They said that the sensible thing to do was to forget the old application and put in an entirely new one, if I was allowed to do that.
In view of the doubts in everyone's mind, I got in touch with my noble friend Lord Sandford, and after some weeks, because I gather that the Department had not made up its mind, I got a letter back from my noble friend, saying that I was perfectly entitled not to go ahead under the terms of the original application, but if I made a new application for the work specified (and I quote, if I may, with my noble friend's permission, one sentence from his letter):
" It would appear to be finally determined by the authority so that the further applica-
814
tion in respect of subsidy for the same work could not be entertained."
That is the attitude of the Minister. I would ask my noble friend on what authority he says that. It certainly is not Parliamentary authority, because in this case I think the Parliamentary authority is the Bill and the Bill says nothing of the kind. All the Bill says is that on or after June 23 to get the new grant the application shall be made on or after that date. It does not mention anything about previous applications. I wonder, when it was drafted, if it was ever intended that it should have that effect.
A previous application for the same work might have been made ten years ago. Does that mean that housing of this kind cannot go ahead? It is an absurdity; and not only that, but the attitude of the Ministry is directly contrary to Government policy, as was laid down in the Second Reading, clearly and sensibly, by my noble friend. What he said was that the intention of the Bill was to encourage
" people to bring forward new improvement work that might have been postponed, if indeed ever undertaken ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/7/71, col. 1204.]
That is exactly the situation of the cottage about which I have been talking: it has certainly been postponed, and, under the old terms, may never be undertaken. I cannot understand why the Department are being so obstructive when Government policy is so clear.
I was in two minds whether to put down this Amendment. It is rather personal, and perhaps I had better say at this stage that it will make no difference to me financially which way it goes: one way I shall spend some money, and hope to get most of it back in due course; and the other way I shall not spend any money, and the cottage will not be let. The reason why I put the Amendment down was that I find that many local authorities are in exactly the same boat. They are saying that it is unfair as between one landlord and another; and furthermore, when they want these houses, many householders will not go ahead unless they get the higher grant, because they cannot afford it. That is the position.
Finally, I would say this to my noble friend. Presumably, what is going to happen is that the Department will circularise local authorities saying that they

815
must not entertain any new application when they have considered such an application at an earlier date. I imagine that is how it will work, because the Bill does not say anything else. If the Department, or the Government, agree to change their mind and say that previous applications do not matter provided all the other things are right, and the new application goes in on or after June 23, then all that has to happen is for them to tell the local authorities that that is the case, and this Amendment will be quite unnecessary. I ask my noble friend to think again, because I believe his Department are going directly contrary to Government policy. But—if he will forgive me for saying so—if it is Government policy, then I think it is extremely stupid. I beg to move.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in what he has said. As I understand it, the object of the Government in promoting this legislation is to give a shot in the arm to the development and intermediate areas and to speed up the improvement of what are appalling housing conditions in those areas, but it seems to me—and it will, I think, seem the same to most of your Lordships—that if this proposal is to help, the test must be whether or not work has been started, and not whether the application has been granted, which at present is the sole test. If I am right, that means that if the argument is still going on, which means that it is a marginal case—it may be, for example, that the house may have a damp course but no sanitation, on the lines that the noble Lord described—it will be eligible for the increased grant; but if the local authority had not objected or questioned the application and it was therefore more obviously a good case, it would not be eligible for the increased grant. That seems to me to be obviously absurd, and I submit to the Government that the test must be whether the work started on June 23, regardless of the date when the application had either been made or considered.
3.35 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: On the previous Amendment we were discussing the possibility of extending the ambit of this
816
legislation in area and bringing in certain geographical areas that had been excluded. We are now talking about the possibility of extending it in point of time, and moving from the line which we have drawn with all due deliberation the date at which schemes were approved, and allowing it to run on to the date corresponding to the date on which the work began. My noble friend Lord Derwent mentioned, with perhaps a slight note of rebuke, that he had been kept waiting for the reply to his inquiry. The reason was not that we had not made up our minds, but that when legislation is introduced to Parliament it is important that Parliament should be able to express a mind on the legislation that is introduced before the Government go on to elaborate the details of their policy. It is for that reason that my noble friend did not have an immediate answer to bb letter and why the circulars to local authorities as to precisely how this will operate have not yet been completed or sent out. I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that that is right: that Parliament has to set its seal on legislation before the policy is brought into operation and all the details for implementing it are worked out.
But what we are dealing with here is the question of whether, in the circumstances of that ritual and this legislation, and this way of accelerating the rate of housing improvement in certain specified areas within a limited time, it would be appropriate to use the same formula that was used in 1969. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not appropriate. The object in 1969 was to prepare for the introduction of legislation in such a way as to prevent a flood of fresh applications coming in from all over the country when the 1969 Bill was enacted. For that purpose, the criterion was whether or not the work had begun on particular schemes for which improvement grants had been authorised. The object in this case is positively to create a flood of new applications covering a fairly short specified period in certain selected areas. We want positively to encourage a flood of fresh applications. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to use a formula which had been specifically designed to prevent one. That is the reason why we have on this occasion drawn the line at the point of approval. I fully admit that if my noble friend

817
has entered into discussions with his local authority with a view to having a particular house improved—and at that stage presumably thought that it was something worth proceeding with at the previous rate of grant—and has taken it to the point of accepting approval from the local authority for that scheme—
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but what does he mean by"accepting "? I understand that accepting the proposal is starting the work, and if you have not started the work you have not accepted. You do not write and say:"I accept it ". They wait until you have done the work, then they come and look at it and pay the grant. They offer it; but you do not accept it.
LORD SANDFORD: I accept that correction. Having allowed this scheme to go forward to the point of approval it is then tantalising to have another scheme coming forward offering superior terms, but were we to accept my noble friend's Amendment and to allow all the schemes which had reached that point to be withdrawn and reconsidered we should be flying right in the face of the particular intention of this legislation. We should be asking the local authorities, at the precise moment when we wanted them to consider new applications which nobody had hitherto thought of and put forward because the sums did not work out right, to reconsider applications which had already been put in and approved, because the owners of the property thought that the terms were appropriate. It is for that reason, which again goes back to the specific purpose of this legislation in contradistinction to the legislation which was put forward in 1969, that I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment if my noble friend insists on pressing it. But I hope that with that explanation he will be disposed to withdraw it, though I can see why in his particular circumstances it would be very much better if the legislation were amended.
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble friend sits down, would he deal with the point which I raised? Why does not the Bill say this?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: With permission, I think it is a little unfair to say that in the situation of
818
the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, this Amendment would clearly be preferable, because I think on grounds of principle that it is desirable and I can only feel that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and I did not make ourselves clear in our previous interventions. Certainly I myself did not rely on the 1969 precedent because I very much accepted what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said on Second Reading. But the point really is that if the local authority were still arguing about a case and saying,"We are not at all sure whether this is a proper case to allow a grant for improvement of property at June 23 ", that property will still be eligible for an increased grant. If, on the other hand, the application which had been put in by the owner of a property disclosed such a clearcut case that the local authority had said,"Yes, we will give a grant on this property ", but they will get it only at a reduced rate, compared with that which the Government are now proposing for the intermediate and development areas. I find it very difficult to defend that either on grounds of equity or indeed of logic. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will feel able to press this Amendment to a Division, in which case I shall ask my noble friends to support him in the Division Lobby.
3.43 p.m.
LORD FLETCHER: I hope that before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rises again he will reconsider this matter, because it seems to me that he has entirely failed to answer the very cogent points put by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and my noble friend Lord Greenwood. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in replying to the earlier debate, in which he said, quite correctly as I thought, that the Amendment was seeking to alter the scope of the Bill; and it seemed to me that he sought to resist this particular Amendment on the ground that it was extending the time limit of the Bill. With great respect, I do not think it is doing anything of the kind. The noble Lord said in the course of his speech that one of the objects of this Bill was to create a flood of new applications; in other words, to encourage applications, as distinct from some other legislation which had been aimed at discouraging applications.

819
The noble Lord then proceeded to say that words that had been inserted in another Act were not appropriate to this particular Bill. That in itself did not seem to me very convincing because, as I understand it, the position is this: certain applications have been made before this Bill becomes law; some of them have been granted and some have not. In so far as any of those applications have been granted and, to use the words of the Amendment,"work on the improvements has started ", then no question arises. Those who have made those applications and have had them accepted and have proceeded with the work, although they may feel the same kind of frustration or"tantalisement ", to use the noble Lord's own expression, have no redress.
There will be other applicants, as in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, whose applications have been accepted but who, on second thoughts, have not (no doubt for very good reasons) proceeded with the work. I do not know the statistics, but it seems to me that there cannot be very many of these cases. However, even if there are a measurable number, I fail to understand on what grounds of principle those applicants should now be debarred from the right to make a fresh application. I should have thought that without further examination they were entitled to make a fresh application.
It seemed to me that the noble Lord did not answer the constitutional point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, as to under what authority that letter had been written. May I say, in parenthesis, that as part, and part only, of that letter has been quoted I should like to ask that the whole text of the letter might be made available to Members of your Lordships' House in Hansard, so that we may all see exactly what has been said and what is the authority behind it. With the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, I find it difficult to understand what possible harm can be done by accepting this Amendment. I imagine that the noble Lord has been given some departmental brief which says that it is always a mistake to accept any Amendment; but that is not an argument which should weigh with your Lordships in this House if your Lordships are satisfied that on grounds of
820
common sense, reason and justice the Amendment is valuable and worth while. I would also think it consistent with the policy enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for this legislation to have encouraged a fresh application of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has in mind. Therefore, as I gather that this matter will be pressed to a Division I hope that the Government, rather than placing themselves in what seems to me an entirely false and untenable position, will accept the Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I am not a landlord, although I have had some slight experience in this particular field; but I detect behind the Government's attitude here the hand of the Treasury, because obviously they do not want to pay a higher grant for something when they can get away with a lower grant. This reveals to me a thing unknown: the extremely unbusinesslike way in which these matters are conducted, because for a local authority to promise a grant to a person and apparently have not the slightest idea of whether or not he goes ahead with the work seems to me grossly unbusinesslike. How on earth is the local authority to budget properly if it has a series of promises out and it never knows when it will be called upon to fulfil them? I suggest that my noble friend the Minister should take back this Amendment and should look at it, particularly from the angle of the administrative practice to be followed in the future, because if we are to have grants which go up and down we must have some clear-cut line by which people can either accept or refuse. They cannot shift from one to the other at will.
3.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to noble Lords. I should like first to clear up some of the minor points. The noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, asked whether the letter to which my noble friend referred, could be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not believe that that would be possible without some further step. However, to the best of my recollection your Lordships have heard the greater part of the letter, and if my noble friend Lord Derwent feels that there are any other parts of it which bear on the matter perhaps he will mention them when he replies to the debate.

821
I should like your Lordships to bear in mind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hawke. It is important, when we have legislation of this kind coming forward, that the Government should decide at what point a line is to be drawn when one scale of grants is giving way to another, and to stick firmly to that. That is what we propose to do. Once again I stress that the purpose of this legislation is to encourage fresh applications. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, may not have fully taken. We do not want at this particular juncture, and as a result of this legislation, to involve the local authorities in grappling with a large number of applications with which they have already dealt; we want them to deal with the new applications which, but for this legislation, would not have come forward. We do not want them to be grappling with old applications which came forward because the owners of the property concerned thought that the grants prevailing before June 23 were suitable for their purposes.
The view which the Government have taken, and which I must advise the Committee to support, is that the right place to draw the line for the purpose of bringing forward new applications which otherwise would not come forward was the point of approval. My noble friend asked what authority I had for writing to him in the terms that I used in the letter, and he pointed out that the terms were not in this legislation. My noble friend is perfectly right in that, but he is not right in supposing that we can now write to local authorities and give them directions which go beyond this legislation. All we can do, and all we intend to do, is remind them of the purpose for which it was introduced, and give it as our view that house improvement grants which have been approved under the previous legislation have been dealt with, and that they ought now to be concerning themselves with new applications coming forward under the new legislation. I do not think I can say anything more to explain why we have chosen to draw the line at the point of approval rather than at the point of the beginning of the work, which I agree was quite appropriate for the 1969 Act but is not appropriate for this more limited provision.
LORD DERWENT: I still do not understand what my noble friend is saying. He has said that he is not giving directions to the local authority. Presumably he holds the purse strings and if the Ministry write to the local authority in those terms then no local authority will give the grant. So it is a direction. If we pass this Amendment, and the Government alter their minds, the Amendment is unnecessary because they can write to the local authority and say,"In our view…" and it will be the other view. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, that a large part of the letter is a friendly chat, and I will read out one sentence which appears before the sentence already referred to. It reads:
" I am advised that there would appear to be no legal objection to a local authority allowing an application before June 23 to be withdrawn provided the original application had not been approved."
The letter goes on to the point that I have already read out. An old application will count for the new scheme, provided that the local authority had been slow and had not approved the original application. If they had been quick off the mark and had given approval, then one cannot benefit. It becomes more Alice in Wonderland.
I do not want to divide the House on this Amendment because I am afraid that it may delay the Bill as we are at the end of the Session. We want this Bill in a great hurry. If the Government give way on this we need not have an Amendment at all. If your Lordships pass this Amendment, the Government can cut it out in Report stage and say that they have altered their minds and tell the local authorities accordingly. I am not going to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, because I believe that the policy of the Government is wrong. I was going to suggest that the Amendment might be negatived, but in view of the support that I have received from noble Lords opposite, for which I am very grateful, when the Question is put to the Committee I shall leave it to the Opposition to decide, and if they decide to have a Division I shall be with them. I feel that I ought to leave this decision to the Committee, in view of the late stage of the Session.
LORD SHEPHERD: Unless the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has anything further to say, I do not think that time is a matter that we should take into consideration on what is an important part of this Bill. If the Committee were to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that Her Majesty's Government, in the days that are still allotted to this Session, would be able to
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, leave out (" completed ") and insert (" carried out ").
824
find ways and means for the Bill, as amended, to be reported, go back to another place and still receive the Royal Assent on time.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Nathan, L.

Amulree, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Reay, L.

Brockway, L.

Hacking, L.

Robbins, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hanworth, V.

Rusholme, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Camoys, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Hood, V.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Hoy, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Crook, L.

lanner, L.

Stonham, L.

Daventry, V.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Swaythling, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Long, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Williamson, L.

Fletcher, L. [Teller.]

Moyle, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Sackville, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

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

St. Just, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ironside, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Skelmersdale, L.

Colgrain, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Latymer, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Thomas, L.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolverton, L.

The noble Lord said: Perhaps we could discuss Amendments No. 3 and No. 5 together because the point is the same. At the outset I think I ought to deal with the possible answer from the Government to these Amendments: that the words concerned,"completed"and"carried out ", mean the same thing. The

825
two terms are used throughout the Bill, but in lines 41 and 42, on page 3, the expression is used:
" works…carried out…and completed "
and so I feel that the Government cannot seek to argue that"completed"and"carried out"mean the same thing.
The state of affairs which these Amendments are designed to deal with aroused a fair amount of concern in another place in Committee, where it was pointed out that there is a closing date two years hence by which time, according to the Bill, works must be completed for the increased grants to be payable, and doubts were raised about the justice of this hard and fast closing date in those cases where some small finishing touch has been left out so that it could be said that the work had not been completed. The example I would like to give is the case of a house which has been improved partly by the addition of two or three extra windows. The windows have had their primer paint on the inside and an undercoat of white paint on the outside, and the builder has planned to apply the final top coat of paint during June, 1973, before closing date (which I think is June 22, 1973). But supposing the first half of June, 1973, is like the first half of June was in 1971, last month, when your Lordships will remember the horses at Ascot ploughing through the mud. What is that builder expected to do? Does he have to go out between the showers and apply a top coat of paint to two or three windows on damp woodwork, knowing full well, as does the local authority surveyor, that that work is quite useless and unnecessary, in order to be able to say by June 22 that the work has been completed?
My submission is that, by substituting for the word"completed"the words"carried out ", the local authority would be able to say with a clear conscience in such a case, where 99·9 per cent. of the work had been carried out and some tiny finishing touch had not been applied through no fault of the developer or his builder, that the work had been carried out and that they could pay the increased grant they promised. They would be able to say that if Parliment had meant completed to the last final, finishing touch, Parliament would have said so, but since Parliament has only said in the Act
826
" carried out ", provided the work has been carried out 99·9 per cent. the local authority can feel satisfied and certify that the work has been carried out, and the increased grant that it attracts will be payable. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: I am sure that the noble Lord's intention is absolutely correct, but I cannot see how his wording makes all that difference. It would require something much more elaborate to cover the case where a final little bit of work could not be completed for some reason—" substantially completed ", or some wording such as that. I cannot see how his suggested wording achieves what he wants.
LORD AIREDALE: I thought very carefully about this and I thought about the word"substantially ", but none of the wordings I could think of was open to no objection of any kind. If the noble Lord himself, the Government, or anybody else can think of wording which does not give the impression that the final finishing touch has to be completed, then I shall be pleased. I am not worried about the form of words, but I hope I have made plain the spirit of what I want to do.
4.11 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Lord has made his intention quite plain, but the effect of the Amendment would be very different from what is intended by this particular legislation. The legislation is designed to bring forward a flood (that was the word I used just now) of new applications in these particular areas which would not otherwise have come forward and which would lead to a substantially increased amount of work being completed within the two years. That is the particular purpose of this special legislation. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to bring forward a lot of new work, but it would remove the incentive to get it done within the two-year period, because the effect would be for all the new work started to attract grant at the higher rate, whether or not it was finished two years from this summer—from June 23, 1971. That is very far from being the intention of this legislation. A whole lot of new work would start and it would then run on without any particular incentive to complete it. Because that is almost the reverse of the

827
incentive we have in mind, or is at least very far from it, I cannot recommend the Committee to agree to this Amendment.
Also, the Amendment would lead to very complex assessments as to which part of the work attracted which scale of grant, which would be extremely cumbersome from an administrative point of view. So I think there is nothing for it, the aim of the Bill having been accepted, but to make it apply to work which comes forward on the relevant date and is completed by the relevant date. Of course, local authorities will exercise their discretion in a reasonable way so that the whole of a particular piece of work which, but for son-le minor detail, is completed within the period does not disqualify the whole scheme from attracting grant at the increased rate. I hope that, with that explanation—again going back to the basic purpose of this legislation—the noble Lord will not feel disposed to press his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, give guidance of some kind to local authorities that they may use discretion, because under the Bill they will not be able to excuse anybody whose work is not 100 per cent. completed? If the noble Lord in some letter of guidance says that a time limit had to be made but it is appreciated that weather will occasionally make 100 per cent. completion impossible, and that local authorities must use their discretion in administering the legislation, I am sure that that will meet the point.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, of course. Guidance to local authorities based on this legislation will go out when Parliament has set its seal upon it. Obviously there would be occasions where it would be appropriate for local authorities to use that discretion.
LORD AIREDALE: Let us be quite clear about this. Am Ito understand that the Government have in mind to send out a Ministry circular to housing authorities saying that in the kind of case I have quoted—where the whole of the work has been completed except that, perhaps, a top coat of paint has not been applied to a few new windows on account of bad weather during the weeks immediately preceding the completion date—the
828
housing authority is not to take the view that the work has not been completed so far as grant is concerned but in such cases will pay the increased grant? Do I correctly undertsand that that is the kind of advice the Government have in mind to send out to local authorities by Ministry circular?
LORD SANDFORD: I do not think there is great difficulty about this. Local authorities can, and often do, already specify the time within which works must be completed, and no insuperable problem as to the definition of"completion"has arisen.
LORD AIREDALE: I have not had an answer to my question. However, I will not keep the Committee longer. One can think of other examples. Supposing that a special mixing tap with a special nozzle for a kitchen sink has been ordered for months, but because of a strike at the factory it has not been delivered. It would be absolutely monstrous to say that because it is not delivered by June 22, and in fact does not arrive until June 24, the developer loses the grant. If we can rest assured that a circular will be issued dealing with such points, then I have no further quarrel and am willing to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I was seeking to show that I can go further than to give the noble Lord such an assurance, because the whole concept of applying a completion date to work for which a housing improvement grant has been given is already established. The idea of setting a time limit to a particular piece of work is already being operated by local authorities. So the problem about final coats of paint, mixing valves and so on, is something with which local authorities are already grappling successfully.
LORD AIREDALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from (" If ") to (" by ") in line 19, and insert (" where after the relevant date, but within the period of two years beginnng with that date the Secretary of State finds it advisable to extend the provisions of this Act to any other local government area and he, ").
The noble Lord said: I am sure the Committee will agree that my one aim in life is to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and I therefore move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Jacques and myself. My object is to strengthen the Secretary of State's hands, not by widening the Bill but by increasing the Secretary of State's discretion to widen the effect of the Bill. The Under-Secretary has fairly told us to-day that the Bill is limited in two respects, in point of time and also geographically. My noble friend Lord Jacques and I tabled this Amendment because we were not wholly satisfied by the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on Second Reading. We have been influenced by the fact that so experienced a body as the Housing Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations have suggested an Amendment along these lines.
Our object is to seek to ensure that the Secretary of State is not limited to bringing in local government areas which are confined to development areas or intermediate areas specified after the relevant date. We want to give him much wider scope than he appears to be anxious to give himself at the present time. On the occasion of the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said:
" My right honourable friend the Secretary of State feels that he already has adequate powers to increase, as necessary, the various cash limits in the 1969 Act. He can do this generally throughout the country by means of a Statutory Instrument. He can do it selectively under his power to approve or determine higher limits for particular cases, or for particular classes of case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/7/71; col. 1202.]
I am forced to the view that if the Secretary of State has the wide discretion that his noble friend then attributed to him there really is not much point in this Bill at all. The Secretary of State could have increased the amount of grant, and he could have extended the areas to which that grant is applicable. I would be the last Member of your Lordships' House to suggest that any measure promoted by the Government was just a gimmick. I am sure it is not just a gimmick. But if it is not, why was it not possible to do it by means of a Statutory Instrument, if indeed the Secretary of State has all the powers which the noble Lord claimed
830
on his behalf? What I want to ensure, and my noble friend Lord Jacques wants to ensure, is that the Secretary of State will, if he believes it to be necessary, extend the area of local authorities to whom the increased rate of grant will be applicable.
We are simply saying to the Secretary of State,"We believe that you will be much wiser, if you do not have this discretion at the moment, to give yourself this discretion in order to avoid the kind of anomalies which are almost bound to develop ". We hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and avoid the Committee coming to a conclusion which might possibly delay the implementation of this Bill, which we all, without exception, wish to see expedited. I beg to move.
LORD JACQUES: I rise in support of the Amendment. This Bill is selective, that is to say it gives additional grants to some local authorities and not to others. It is inevitable that in this selective process there will be anomalies, and the extent of the anomalies will not yet be known. This Amendment will give the Secretary of State power to deal with those anomalies if and when they arise.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that when we were discussing Amendment No. 1 he admitted that the case which I quoted of the county borough of Warrington was an anomaly, but he opposed the Amendment because that Amendment would widen and bring in the designated areas of all the new towns. I would like to suggest to him that, by accepting this Amendment, an anomaly such as Warrington could be dealt with in isolation. It would be entirely a matter for the Minister to deal with as he thought fit. It need not bring in any other area. I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment, and deal with the anomaly which I raised when I spoke on Amendment No. 1.
LORD SANDFORD: It is an unusual position to be resisting unfettered and untrammelled powers which have been offered to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by Her Majesty's Opposition, but there really are embarrassments in carrying powers which are too wide and too extensive for a Minister

831
to be able to operate effectively without any"say"from Parliament. If this were a Bill designed to give further encouragement generally to house and to area improvement I think the arguments of both noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment would be entirely valid, although I think the reluctance of my right honourable friend to have powers and to be invited to use them as comprehensively as this would still remain. As it is, I think, like the other Amendments, they miss the particular point of this legislation with which we are dealing.
Any method of giving increased financial assistance selectively, as this Bill does, is bound to discriminate against the places which are left outside the scope of the scheme. The starting point of this Bill, as I explained at Second Reading, is that the annual rate of increase in the numbers of grants approved in the development and intermediate areas has been about half that in the rest of England and Wales. That is the specific and narrow point with which we are dealing, and it is only that point. For that reason the Government have deliberately chosen to inject this extra assistance into these particular areas for this limited period, so as to give them a chance to catch up with the rest of the country. The development areas and the other assisted areas already receive preferential treatment over the rest of the country in other economic measures.
During the course of this Bill through Parliament this narrow and limited concept has been generally accepted, although attempts have been made at several points to give it a wider term of reference. Any such attempt would, I submit, alter quite fundamentally the intention of this Bill. But that is not to say that the Government do not fully recognise that there are many other areas—to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and many others, have been drawing our attention—which will not be helped by the limited short-term assistance to be given by this Bill. That would be fair ground for criticism were it not that we already have in prospect another and much more comprehensive major piece of legislation, which is specifically designed to deal with other—in some senses even
832
more urgent—problems of housing and housing stress. It is because this other Bill is in prospect that we are seeking so firmly to restrict the concept of this Bill now before the Committee.
All these spheres of housing, and housing problems, and housing stress will benefit from the proposals in the White Paper Fair Deal for Housing, the aim of which is to give the greatest amount of help to the areas of greatest housing need, and these are the areas in which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, are concerned with their Amendment. But because we have this other legislation in prospect I hope that they will feel able to withdraw this Amendment, with that explanation, and I hope therefore the Committee will not need to consider whether or not to vote on it. All the other problems of housing elsewhere in the country, whether it be slum clearance or building new houses or improving existing houses, will benefit from this further legislation which we shall introduce in the next Session of Parliament. Therefore I hope noble Lords will not press this Amendment, which would give my right honourable friend powers which at this stage he would much rather not have.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: The noble Lord is presupposing a measure of agreement with the Government's forthcoming legislation on housing which will not, I believe, then materialise. I know it will be accepted that I am the last Member of your Lordships' House to seek to force my help on a Government who do not need it, and therefore I shall not insist upon asking the Committee to divide in support of the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. But purely for the instruction of simple students of the Constitution, could the noble Lord before I withdraw the Amendment, explain why, if the Secretary of State has adequate powers at present to extend the amount of grant and the area of the country to which grant is available by Statutory Instrument, he has decided on this occasion to do so by means of a Bill and not by Statutory Instrument?
LORD SANDFORD: I am not sure. I would have to look at what I said and the precise context in which I said it. But

833
I am sure the Committee would agree that to apply a major increase right across the whole field of housing improvement grants to the whole of Scotland and a quarter of the local authorities of England and Wales would be a step which ought not to be taken without the sanction of Parliament.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: In view of the explanation which the noble Lord has given, whatever one may think about its adequacy, I am very happy to withdraw the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jacques and myself; he and I will put our heads together between now and Report stage to see whether any action is necessary. I hope it will not be. If the noble Lord can think of a more convincing argument between now and then, I hope he will put me in possession of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
4.33 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): 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 Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [School milk for pupils in England and Wales]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" eleven ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends, Lady Phillips, Lady Summerskill and myself. The Amendment
834
is designed to alter the age set out in the Bill from seven to eleven; in other words, to ensure that children will be provided with free milk between the ages of five and eleven. The food value of milk is well established; of that there is no doubt whatever. It provides for the growing child, as no substitute at the same price can possibly do. It is, as has been said, Nature's own diet, and as a nation we are privileged that it is in plentiful supply in this country at a price that has enabled us to produce as fine a generation of young people as the world has seen, far better than in countries not so well supplied and not so well blessed with this world's riches. We know the importance of ensuring that the child at school is adequately fed. If he is not, the greater degree of inadequacy, the less likely he is to benefit from the education offered to him. We know also that an adequate diet is a necessity to build healthy bodies. We have, very rightly, as a nation been proud of the young people who have grown up since the war years, when we decided that all children should have access to nourishing food.
School milk and school meals have been tremendously important. This is not a Bill to provide or not to provide school meals, but it is important that we remember that the price of school meals has been raised recently, and as a result one million fewer children are taking them. And it is most important to remember also that the price is to go up again next April, despite the catastrophic drop in daily numbers of meals supplied as a result of the first cut in the school meals service of the Barber's razor. The Committee would do well to remember the price increase of last April, and the one that is yet to come, in considering this matter of supplying free milk to children between seven and eleven. I venture to suggest that because of what has already happened in regard to the school meals service, and having regard to what we can anticipate may happen next April, there is a greater need to protect the milk position, because many children in primary schools will depend increasingly on the daily one-third of a pint.
We have to remember that in this Bill there is no means test for free school milk. Poverty does not rank for free milk. There is free milk only if the

835
medical officer says it is necessary; and heaven knows how the medical officers are going to get around the schools to do the job!—because many of them, as I understand it, do not see all the children even once a year. With the probability of still fewer children having school meals after the further rise in price next April, it is imperative that we maintain the supply of milk for the children in this age group. Let me once again remind the Committee of what Dr. George Lynch and Dr. Sylvia de la Paz reported as their findings as a result of a survey of the food patterns of 4,382 school children of both sexes in the ten to twelve year age group:
" Of primary children, 18 per cent. and 28 per cent., respectively, were estimated to be at risk in terms of insufficient intakes of calcium and riboflavin. We calculated that in the event of the withdrawal of school milk, and on the assumption that no compensatory changes in dietary habits occurred, the percentages of inadequate intakes referred to would increase to 34 per cent. and 39 per cent. Subsequent investigations of the 2,471 primary children included in the sample have shown that of those consuming milk drinks 39 per cent. depended entirely on school milk for this source of nourishment."
In the course of the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the interim report of these two doctors—and the report was issued because of their grave concern at the decision to cut free milk for the seven to eleven year olds—
" was based on questions to 4,300 school children who were asked to recall everything which they had eaten in the previous 24 hours, and really this is not the sort of survey which can be put to the Committee on the medical aspects of food policy…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/7/71, col. 1367.]
In saying that, he was only repeating what his right honourable friend the Secretary of State had said when the issue was debated in another place. She also spoke of a 24-hour recall survey. The Committee might like to know that the two doctors, in an article in the New Scientist dated July 1, this year, said this:
" Mrs. Thatcher is aware of the existence of the survey undertaken by our unit. She referred to it, albeit erroneously, in the recent debate when she described nutritional analysis as being based on a 24-hour recall instead of the food patterns to which the children were accustomed during the school week."
I think one might give a little more credit to the two doctors than has been given
836
by the spokesman on behalf of the Department. There are others who can speak as professionals in this field, and I will leave the matter in the hope that some of them may take part in the debate. I have little doubt that those who are professionals will testify to the health value of supplying food, particularly to young children.
I want to come to what the cut is all about. This desire of the Government to deprive the seven to eleven year olds of a free daily one-third of a pint of milk while at school is to save £5·9 million in this current year and £9 million in a full year. How they estimate that I do not know, as no one knows at the moment what medical officers are going to recommend by way of free milk for children needing medical milk. If they have power to recommend milk for preventive reasons, all calculations could be upset. What is this £5·9 million, and this £9 million, to be used for? The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said it was a significant sum, but, he told us [col. 1329]:
" what is of far greater importance is that this saving forms part of an overall design to discontinue, or reduce, public expenditure which benefits many people who may not need the subsidy that it contains and to concentrate Government help where it is most needed, and to reallocate the savings in scarce public resources to priorities which are crying out for attention. As part of this overall policy my right honourable friend has particularly announced record allocations to replace or improve old primary schools…"
While we welcome the promise, we take note at the same time that the figures for secondary schools, as announced in the programme for improvements and replacements for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974, are cut to zero. No money at all is included for improvements or replacements for secondary schools in that period. All the money is to be spent on the primary schools.
Frankly, this supposed reallocation needs closer examination. With the savings on free milk for seven to eleven year olds, and the savings consequent on higher charges for school meals, it is estimated that a sum of £38 million is secured. I want to ask the Minister where this figure of £38 million is reflected in the totals which are being spent on improvements and replacements at any time from now on, in any programme that has so far been announced. The

837
announced programmes do not show an increase of £38 million. What is proposed by way of expenditure is expenditure that will be undertaken by the local education authorities. I think it is fair to say, therefore, that the sum that will be coming from national sources will be well below the £38 million about which so much play has been made.
If we are to judge the adequacy of the programme that has been announced, we ought to be told the global amount for all the applications which have been received. I note that last week the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated that it would be too costly to supply this information, but somewhere along the line somebody must have some idea as to the adequacy of the programme that has been announced when balanced against the applications that have been submitted. By cutting down on secondary school improvements the Secretary of State is not only not giving more freedom to local education authorities; she would indeed appear to be hampering, in the years to which I have referred, any proposals for secondary reorganisation. If, as we have been, we are lagging in this sphere of replacing and improving our primary schools, surely we could make up for those years of neglect without depriving small children of milk.
I doubt whether many noble Lords in this House who received substantial tax relief from the recent reductions would have advocated cutting school milk and raising the price of school meals to find the £38 million required to benefit people in receipt of over £4,000 a year. If there are, they ought to stand up to be counted. Indeed, it may well be that this afternoon they will have the chance. I hope that this House will say that it will not agree to taking milk from the mouths of children aged seven to eleven to put more cream on the tables of those who are in receipt of over £80 a week. This House has an opportunity this afternoon, as it has on so many occasions, to show that it has a heart, and that it also has a proper sense of priorities. I beg to move.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: There is a tradition in your Lordships' House that all subjects that come before us should be discussed in an atmosphere
838
which is calm and courteous, the assumption being that, whatever our varying points of view, we are all making a contribution which we believe is in the best interests of our country. I find it very hard to keep up that tradition this afternoon. I do not propose to go into any juggling arithmetic about what we can save on primary schools and add to building costs, because I think this philosophy of"feeding the dog its own tail"has gone too far. We have to look at the total expenditure on education and the total expenditure on other important subjects, and give them their proper priorities. We have had just about enough of this business of thinking that even crippled children cannot be allowed to go into our museums and art galleries free so that we can have a building fund for more museums and galleries; and that children of 7 to 11 should be deprived of their milk on this false reasoning so that we can do some more building. I am not interested in that end of it at all.
Another thing that bothers me is the idea of children being asked what they have been eating in the past 24 hours. Do you think the children are going to tell you the truth? One of the most dreadful things about what the Government are proposing to do is that they are not only depriving young children of essential nourishment, but they are also exposing them in a way that young children should not be exposed. Many Members on both sides of your Lordships' House may know a distinguished friend of many of us called Miss Griffiths. She was a headmistress in the Rhondda, and she became a leading official of the National Union of Teachers. She was a very great educationist known to many of us. But I was always impressed by what she told me about teaching in the Rhondda in the between-war years, when there was a good deal of malnutrition.
A very friendly and fatherly inspector came down from London, and she told him about the difficulty she had with children who were coming to school in the morning not properly fed. She indicated a child in the class and said,"You know, she is coming to school these mornings with no breakfast at all." In all kindness, the fatherly inspector said,"Come here Mary ", and called this little girl out in front. He was not trying to humiliate her in front of the entire class

839
and he asked her quite quietly,"Mary, what did you have for breakfast this morning?" She looked him in the eye and said,"Ham and egg ". She thought that was the correct thing to say, and she was not going to let the side down.
So I am doubly furious about this Bill. I do not think we have any right to treat children in this way. They are extremely sensitive, and they do not want to be separated because their father and mother are poorer than others. We ought to take note of how many families are not applying for what they are legally entitled to get. There are various reasons for that, and one is that children have a soul as well as a body, and they have their dignity. So I am doubly contemptuous of a Government who are trying to solve the problems of this country by taking away milk from children between the ages of 7 and 11.
I am not qualified to talk as a doctor, but we all know that milk is a very important ingredient in the food that children must have. I am not asking for the impossible. I never expected a Labour Government, and I certainly do not expect a Conservative Government to introduce the millenium straight away. There is a limit to what any Government can do, either forwards or backwards. But the present Government are excelling themselves in the rate they are trying to move backwards. No-one expects that we shall solve all our problems, but why do we not hold what we have? There were decent things done in this country at the end of the Second World War. For a time there was a philosophy that we were going to make life better for the ordinary man and woman. One of the best things we did was to see that even before our children were born they were properly looked after. People came from all over the world and said,"How can this be? Your homes and factories have been blitzed, but look at your babies." We thought them our most precious asset, and we have a very proud record everywhere for the way we took care of our children even before they were born. And what efforts we made in the schools. I should love to see the feeding of children taken out of schools. I should like to see children's community restaurants open 365 days a year. We ought to be thinking ahead and being progressive, and it is very
840
sad that in your Lordships' House we should be called together this afternoon in order to take a glass of milk away from children between the ages of 7 and 11.
4.54 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I fully sympathise with my noble friend who has just spoken. During the Second Reading of this Bill it was very difficult for many Members here—only one noble Lord spoke from the other side—to control their indignation. One should congratulate noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite on the fact that only one noble Lord tried to defend this Bill. I dealt then with every aspect of the Bill, and I now propose to confine myself to this Amendment. In so doing-, I can take up the most amazing question which the noble Lord opposite asked at the end of his speech. He asked: what is the difference between depriving a child of 11 of milk and depriving a child of 7? Between the ages of 7 and 11 are four years during which a child is growing rapidly, and they are four years during which a child should have the added benefit of milk every day. I want to put another point to the noble Lord.
I dealt earlier with the growth of children and the importance to their psyche, to their confidence, and to their whole future of attaining their optimum size and growth. But there is another aspect to consider about the years between 7 and 11. Those are the vital years which precede the 11-plus, or whatever may replace it, which is the most important educational test and determines a child's whole future. As the noble Baroness has said—and we all know Sarah Griffiths, of whom she was speaking—the child who comes to school hungry is the exhausted and inattentive child, and although it may have a good IQ it fails to absorb knowledge. This was known during the last century, but it is only in this century that teachers appear to have had the courage to speak out on the subject. I appeal to your Lordships to help these children between 7 and 11 in this very small way.
The child may have feckless parents and may come to school without food, but it is wholly dependent upon its parents and cannot help itself. All we can do is to try to help it in school by giving it some food. As I said on Second Reading, I look upon milk as a complete food.

841
It is the food which nature provided in order that the species could continue to exist. It contains all those constituents—that is, fats, carbohydrates and proteins—which a complete food contains, and we are asking for a third of a pint of milk a day to be given to these poor children between the ages of 7 and 11 throughout the country.
May I appeal to the hearts and minds of noble Lords opposite? Is this where any economy should be made? It may be said that we are a peculiar nation, anxious to spoil our children. But let us look at the other countries—because educationists everywhere know that the better a child is fed the better it can learn. The Scandinavian countries gave then children breakfasts years ago, and now the affluent United States of America has decided to provide breakfasts at a cost of 25 million dollars. If a child comes to school without breakfast, it has to see the morning through in that state. These other countries are saying, quite rightly—and when we see the Government's meanness it makes it very difficult for us to ask for more—that this is wrong. When the hungry child comes to school let us fill its tummy right away, so that we can warm it up—because food is a most important factor in giving warmth—and make it more attentive. Otherwise, as these other countries very wisely say, we are wasting money on education. It is a complete waste of money to try to teach a hungry child.
Your Lordships may say that this is a Party matter and this is a political speech. I ask you to consider the standing of the medical officer of health in your own areas. A medical officer of health is regarded in medical circles as a man of the highest integrity. You have to realise that a man or woman who has decided to become a medical officer of health enters a salaried service, one in which the lure of money, which might attract some doctors in private practice, does not obtain at all. These medical officers of health are in my opinion the very cream of the profession. What are they saying about this? Let me quote from The Times of June 18 an article headed,
" Milk decision retrograde, school medical officers say."—
these are the men who examine the schoolchildren—
842
" The principal officers in the 12 Inner London boroughs have sent a memorandum to the authority telling it they regard the abandonment of the principle of free milk for all children aged 7 to 12 as a retrograde step.
" They are particularly concerned about the part they will have to play in the new system, particularly when it comes to deciding who should receive free ' medical milk '. It is believed that the officers' concern was one of the main contributory factors in the…ILEA'S decision on Wednesday to try to resist the new Government measure.
" In their memorandum the officers say the effect of the stooping of free milk can be discernable only after it has been in operation for a considerable time ".
I ask your Lordships to consider that last sentence: you can detect malnutrition only after a child has been undernourished for a considerable time. As I said before, I presume somebody will then come along and say,"Let us give it a third of a pint of milk a day ", when the damage has already been done. I ask your Lordships to-day to reconsider this inhuman decision of the Government. This must have been a Cabinet decision, and without being offensive I feel that every individual in that Cabinet has never had an opportunity to see hungry children and does not know the conditions which we are describing today; otherwise, they could not possibly have allowed this Bill to be printed. Therefore, on this Amendment I do not ask your Lordships simply to listen to my appeal, but to consider the very carefully worded statement of the medical officers of health, who spend their lives among these children, and, having considered it, to vote for this Amendment.
5.2 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: Perhaps I may intervene for just one moment. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in 1940—and the position of this country was a good deal more desperate at that moment than it is to-day—I was privileged to introduce to another place, under the direction of Lord Woolton, the original National Milk Scheme. That was a very good scheme, and it provided the basis upon which the whole subsequent structure of our nutritional policy for schoolchildren was built—meals in schools and milk in schools, and, indeed, milk in the home. To a large extent that structure is being dismantled by the present Government for a paltry sum, and I have already said to your Lordships' House that I

843
think Lord Woolton would turn in his grave if he realised what was being done to-day. I think that now to deprive schoolchildren of free milk between the ages of seven to eleven is just about as unforgivable an act as I have ever known a Government take—and for a paltry £5 million or £6 million. We know from expert authority that from seven to twelve is a vital age from a nutritional point of view. It is a critical and crucial age; and to deprive these children of a glass of milk a day in school is, to me, quite incomprehensible. Apart from that, I have nothing to add to what has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, by the medical profession as a whole and, above all, by the medical officers of health. I think the arguments cannot be countered, and I would beg your Lordships, if there is a Division, to vote against this iniquitous proposal.
BARONESS BERKELEY: I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lords who have just spoken. I think children are very much more advanced nowadays, and I very much doubt if children of ten or eleven really need or require milk. Children are fed on adult food at a very much earlier age than they ever used to be 10, 20 or 30 years ago, when milk was very much more of a staple diet for them. That, I gather, is the experience of my friends and relatives who have young children. Nowadays, there are such things as family allowances and supplementary benefits; so surely there should be no reason why mothers should not take title trouble to feed their children and give them a proper breakfast before they go to school. Therefore, if this Amendment is put to the vote I shall have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend the Minister in the Division Lobby.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I have only three sentences to add in support of this Amendment. First of all, all honour to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and to the memory of Lord Woolton, for what was done in the war years. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who asked,"Does it matter when you stop providing free milk for children? ", I would say that it is much more important to let them have milk from the ages of seven to eleven than after eleven. That I do not
844
think many people would dispute. It is a matter of judgment whether it is better to improve old primary schools (for this is the excuse that the Government gave when they announced their decision to stop the free milk) than to invest in the health of our young children from the ages of seven to eleven. Given the choice, I come down on the side of old primary schools and free milk, because to have"spanking"new schools for children who are not particularly healthy does not seem to me at all to be the answer to our problems to-day about the young.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I say a few words in support of the Government? Noble Lords opposite appear to be saying that the Government are depriving children from the ages of seven to eleven of milk. They are not depriving the children of milk. They are saying, so far as I understand, that if, presumably, the parents can afford it, then they will pay for the third of a pint of milk. If a child is obviously undernourished, then the medical officer will be aware of that fact. If he is not aware of that fact, he is obviously not doing his job: if he is aware of that fact, then the child will get the milk. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, who said that she was very contemptuous of the Government for doing this. I personally think she ought to be very contemptuous of parents. The average parent is to-day earning pretty well £2,000 a year, if you take the industrial wage—£30 a week, anyway; £1,500 a year. The noble Baroness should be very contemptuous of the parents. It is not a packet of cigarettes a week. Surely they could deny themselves that, or maybe the father a couple of pints of beer, to give their child milk. I quite agree that the Bill seems rather niggardly, but to say that the Government are depriving children from seven to eleven years of age of milk is an exaggeration.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Would the noble Viscount give way? I wonder whether he could state the source of his information that most people earn £2,000 a year?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The average industrial wage is now just about £30 a week—£28 to £30 a week—and even if you have four children and are out of work you can

845
draw National Assistance up to about £1,000 a year. If you have four children, you can draw up to £18 a week, anyway. But I quite agree that the children of people on National Assistance ought to get free milk. I personally thought their children did, with the extra supplementary benefits and everything else that the Government have now granted. But I really think that the average parent, if he is in a good job, ought to be only too pleased to deny himself a packet of cigarettes to give his child milk.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: If we satisfy the noble Viscount that the child of the poor parent cannot get free milk merely because the parents are poor, will he think again?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The medical officer of health will presumably know, or should know, the financial conditions of the parents and therefore should see that the child gets the extra milk.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Can the noble Viscount tell me in what category of work does a woman who has to support her children get £30 a week?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Viscount has made clear from what he said at the beginning that he did not fully understand the position. I think we all agree with that. I think that some of the support that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has had from behind him has been rather unwelcome.
The only argument in defence of this action is that families in one way or another, with the rise in wages and benefits, have enough income for this small amount to make no difference. That may be true at the level of £30 a week. I am responsible for an organisation called the Family Service Units. We look after about 1,500 families in 17 different areas of England. These are all problem families, all families who have failed to match up effectively to life. It may be said that it is their own fault. That does not matter: it is not the fault of the children. There is not one of these families who, confronted with the rising rates of everything at the moment, is not in severe difficulties. It is of no use the noble Lord's telling us that this small sum makes no difference; it makes a great difference to families who are
846
already short. I think that there should be no question of riding off our criticism on the ground that the sum is so small, that, as the noble Viscount suggested, the people can divert it from cigarettes to milk. This is not what happens in the type of families that I am speaking of: the father probably does spend the money on cigarettes, and he is very likely in prison. The children do not get it. If you cut off the free one-third of a pint of milk, they may get the milk but may not get something else. This is a diminution in an income which is already too small for something like 200,000, or perhaps 300,000 families in this country. This should be underlined. If this is what the Government mean, then let them say so clearly.
BARONESS BIRK: When we are talking about incomes we seem to have overlooked the fact that the unemployment figures in the last month were at their highest for this time of the year since the 1940s. There were over 800,000 unemployed. So far as the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, about its being up to the parents, is concerned, this may be so; and it is true that in many cases they do not plan well. But our concern here is with the children. This is not merely a question of lecturing the parents; it is the end result which is our concern. She cited an example of family allowances. This is our point. Family allowances are not given selectively but generally to every family. I will not go over the arguments of all the speakers who have supported this Amendment. Even those experts who argue about whether extra milk for that age group is essential have always done so with the proviso that there is a properly balanced diet for the child. This is not a question only of money but also of knowing a great deal more about nutrition than, with respect, do many of us in your Lordships' House. The less money a family has, the more difficult it is to provide a nutritionally balanced diet. This is why to cut off this milk for the seven to eleven year olds seems grossly wrong and against the whole welfare of children. I hope that the Committee will support this Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I made an impassioned speech on Second Reading but I should like to follow up the

847
point made by the noble Viscount that the average family can afford to give their children money to buy the milk. How is that going to be supervised? They may not buy milk; they may buy sweets or cigarettes. The point is this. We all know that milk is a balanced food and whether you come to school in the morning with a full"tummy"or go without breakfast, at about 11 o'clock you get a sinking feeling there and a third of a pint of milk will make all the difference. We want to improve the education of our children; we do not want to put a stumbling block in their way at 11 o'clock when they cannot absorb any education. We want to bring them along. I should like to appeal to all medical officers of health who feel as I do about milk for the seven to eleven year olds to certify the whole school as being in need of school milk.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to agree with the noble Lord about the sinking feeling. Where I went to school we had our first class of the day before taking any milk or food of any sort. I agree that there is quite a sinking feeling.
5.18 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: I am not seeking to cut short the deliberations of the Committee, but I wonder whether I may make four quick points. I should have thought that if it is shown that children are going to school hungry, whether to new schools or to old schools, it will be the inescapable responsibility of any Government to rethink the policy on nutrition. Secondly, I wonder whether I may, with great respect, put it to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that the Government do take this point of view. The Government, like the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, also take the view that nutritional standards have changed since the noble Lord introduced the National Milk Scheme in the dark and early days of the war. The noble Lord referred to Lord Woolton. I can remember the"Woolton Surprise ". This is not a flippant remark. It was a baked potato and in the middle was minced meat. Anyone who remembers that dish in the years between 1940 and 1945 will remember that as the years went by, so you dug deeper and deeper
848
into the potato to find the minced meat. We do not live in quite that kind of situation to-day. All I would ask the noble Lord to do, with his customary generosity, is to weigh what I am going to put to the House and see whether he still believes that the nutritional standards of to-day and the steps the Government are taking concurrently with this Bill do not make the noble Lord change his mind with regard to the Division Lobbies.
My third point is that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in moving this Amendment asked specific questions about school building. I did not intend to put to the Committee specific matters about school building. Not once, but again and again, he asked for specific figures. He referred to the primary schools building programme. Off the cuff, I can say this. As the previous Government left the primary schools building programme, it would have taken about twenty years to do away with the pre-1903 primary schools. At the present rate of progress it will take something like six to seven years. We are talking about a substantial difference in this field.
Fourthly, and lastly, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I do not range quite so widely as some of your Lordships have done in the interesting and expert speeches which have been made, some of which, I must say, touched on Amendments to follow. May I descend for a moment from the heights to which your Lordships' oratory has led us and come to the effect of this Amendment? Under the Amendment the general entitlement to free school milk would continue to the age at which the vast majority of pupils are transferred from primary to secondary schools. The situation ought to be clear to the Committee. In 1968 the previous Government removed free milk from secondary schools. This meant that any pupil at a primary school, at whatever age, continued with free milk.
This arrangement included those middle schools, which were deemed primary, but owing to an oversight, to which everyone was a party, no-one foresaw that no arrangement was made for the handful of middle schools which were deemed secondary schools. So, in

849
1970 a Bill was passed, through the good offices of Mr. McNamara in another place, and this entitled pupils in middle schools deemed secondary to free milk up to their twelfth birthday. So hitherto, up to this moment, the arrangement has been no milk in secondary schools since 1968, milk in all middle schools deemed to be primary and in middle schools deemed to be secondary up to the age of twelve. That is the present position. The effect of these Amendments would be to continue free milk for most pupils' primary school life, but suddenly to cut it off for those who remain at primary and middle schools if they go on at those schools, until they are twelve. This is a small, ragged aspect of the Amendment, but I make no complaint of that. In addition, the Amendments would have the undesirable effect of reintroducing free milk into secondary schools—at least in England and Wales; the date of transfer in Scotland is when a child becomes twelve. There would be consequent inconveniences for local authorities in the schools which any noble Lord can check if he care to consult with those bodies.
What I am surprised at in replying to this Amendment is that, having made one perhaps rather inaccurate shot in 1968 with the withdrawal of free milk from secondary schools, the Government should be asked to introduce or reintroduce free milk to secondary schools. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would consult local authorities she would find, I feel sure, something which they would not like and that the view which her Party took in 1968 is administratively wrong. The only charitable view which I can take—the noble Baroness is shaking her head but I have still to make the point—is that noble Lords opposite are not entirely seized of the effect of their Amendments. However, there are more substantial points between the two sides of the Committee than this.
The Government believe that the age for giving free milk can cease at the end of the summer term after the seventh birthday, probably, on average, at seven and a half years of age; it may be older or younger. Like the Party opposite, we do not know for a fact, despite all that we have heard this afternoon, whether that is an absolutely accurate age. We admit that, and the reason why we do not know whether it is absolutely
850
accurate to choose that age is, as I sought to explain on Second Reading, that, like the previous Government, we have not received advice from the Chief Medical Officer and his Committee that withdrawal of milk can be harmful to primary school pupils. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, I agree that the younger the child the greater the care that is needed. That is the reason why your Lordships should open the Bill. You will see that we retain the medical entitlement for almost exactly the same age groups of pupils as those receiving free milk since 1968 and we also add the new power for local authorities to sell milk.
We believe that, contrary to what has been said to some noble Lords, where milk is available for sale, there is every reason to expect that it will be bought. Increasingly schools are starting with more freedom of choice in their school meals service; and with this, of course, goes the regulation—I believe Regulation 5(2)—to sell food and other refeshments: because, again, since 1968, owing to an oversight, it simply has not been possible to make milk available at all in secondary schools. This has been denied to local authorities and the children concerned. In dismissing this new power, as noble Lords opposite have been doing, I would ask them to remember the oversight which occurred in the 1968 legislation. I would also ask noble Lords not to disregard the very considerable social security rights which are now being introduced. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said he thought that if a family was on supplementary benefit there was a right to free school milk. Some of your Lordships seemed to take the view that as he said that it was something which he should know about, but I think that his mistake was very reasonable. This year there have been increased child tax allowances, family income supplement, increases in supplementary benefit and sickness and unemployment benefit—all concurrently taking place with the introduction of this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned unemployment, but what she failed to mention is that from September 20 there will be an increase in unemployment benefit. If we take a family with

851
three children at school we find that they have an extra £2 10s. (using old currency) coming into the family per week. The same sort of family with three children at school on supplementary benefit will have £2 more per week. I have to point out that this happens to be a small matter—so-called—of twenty times more than will be required per week for a child's milk. Your Lordships may not like the way this is done, but I think it reasonable to point out that my noble friend made a reasonable mistake when he said that he thought supplementary benefit equated with free school milk.
BARONESS BIRK: I am sure the noble Lord must be aware of the lack of take-up. Very soon, as has been pointed out over the week-end, the Government will be spending more on advertising the supplement than in handing it out. The reason why this point about milk is so important is simply that the supplementary benefit is not being taken up.
LORD BELSTEAD: I hope the noble Baroness is not suggesting that when over 50,000 will be entitled to family income supplementary benefit as from tomorrow the fact that the scheme is not advertised as economically as she would like means that these people will not be entitled to their supplementary benefit. I must say that that is a novel and entirely new point of view from the other side of the Committee.
Like my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, although we obviously disagree on these points, I am surprised that noble Lords opposite have not at least given nodding recognition to these huge extra—I do not like to call them benefits, but extra rights introduced in this year. I would have hoped that, in calling in aid Dr. Lynch particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would have weighed some value of the social security rights. The Government are showing good faith and these exist. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, perfectly correctly quoted from a recent article in the New Scientist by Dr. Lynch and his colleague, Dr. de la Paz, on their estimates of malnutrition. He has every right to draw attention to the opinions of two very distinguished socioliogists, but why not draw attention to measures which the
852
Government are taking to try to keep up incomes? There was the undertaking which I gave the House on Second Reading on behalf of my right honourable friend that as soon as Dr. Lynch's survey comes out it will be put to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food. I assure your Lordships that it will be awaited hopefully and dealt with quickly.
One thing which does become clear from the remarks made in this debate is that your Lordships require, before I sit down, a very quick sketch of the measures being taken to monitor and check the effect on nutrition to-day. Very swiftly, may I first remind your Lordships of the considerable amount of data already available through the routine medical examinations carried on by the school health service and of the existing data from the National Food Survey, which is a continuous sampling inquiry into domestic food consumption, expenditure and nutrition in private households in Great Britain. In future this information is going to be used differently, in that it will be analysed to test the extent parents make good at home the milk which perhaps is no longer going to be consumed in school. These are what might be called adjustments to the existing sources of large-scale information to make them more useful in a monitoring sense. In addition, a survey is going on in Kent and another in Birmingham. I am bound to say, even under the barrage of expert and threatening advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that the impression coming in from the surveys so far is that the findings are in harmony with those of the school health survey—that is, that the general nutritional state of our school population is good, with little or no sign of malnutrition to be observed. As I think your Lordships know, this was gone into in considerable detail in another place.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The reason for that was described by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and myself. That fact is that we established a nutritional service which was administered all over the country and this is the result. The noble Lord will not be able to stand up at that Box in a few years' time and in that suave manner of his make that statement, if the Party in office stays in power for a few years and this policy of theirs is introduced.
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sure that the noble Baroness wants to be fair to the House. My remarks apply to secondary schools just as much as to primary schools. The Party opposite withdrew milk from secondary schoolchildren in 1968, and now it would be possible to see the effects of malnutrition among secondary schoolchildren if it were there. In addition, a sub-committee of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy has recommended that a major survey should be put in hand to study the possible effects of the changes in the arrangements in milk on growth, nutrition and health status of schoolchildren. This survey will involve the study of several thousands of children a year from different areas of the country and it would take into account not only the physical measurements of children but also such factors as health history, dietary information and socio-economic status. I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time, but I felt that this is something your Lordships would want to know, particularly bearing in mind the sort of remarks made, with all his experience, by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and other noble Lords.
May I finish by saying that the Government believe genuinely that the savings made by this Bill are part of a strategy, not a hypothecation (I think that is the word) of particular pieces of expenditure, to reduce taxation and to concentrate on priorities. I should not have thought that there was so much between us to to divide the two sides of the House. If noble Lords will look at the House of Commons Hansard of November 4, 1968, they will see that when the then Minister announced the withdrawal of free school meals from the fourth and subsequent children in a family, his reason was that the £4 million he was going to save"could be more wisely applied ". When the last Government announced the second increase in school meals charges (incidentally a 75 per cent. increase in school meals by one Government is not bad going), the Minister once again referred to the expenditure needed in other areas of the educational service. I do not in the least criticise previous Ministers for giving this as their reason, because this is precisely the reason for this Bill. The Amendment before us is fundamental, because it would remove the majority
854
of the intended saving. Of course, specific savings are not specifically earmarked but I suggest that the Government are remaining true to their word. Taxation has been reduced and my right honourable friend is pursuing a primary schools building programme which is earning her the gratitude of the education service.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I had intended supporting the Amendment before the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke, and I still feel that I ought to support it. I do not know anything about nutritional values, because I am not a doctor. What I do know is that every morning of my life my children say either to my wife or to me,"What is for break?" what is there to eat in the mid-morning break? They are given an apple or something of that kind. In maintained schools where milk is provided—and I have recently been over a whole series of schools, primary, middle and secondary, and seen this happen—children have milk. When this milk is not naturally available, they are going to turn to their parents and ask for something for the break. If there is nothing in the house, they will be given some coppers and told,"Get yourself something on the way." They will buy sweets. It is well known that sweets are the biggest enemy of dental health. I understand that in Birmingham a survey has just been carried out showing that as a result of sweet-eating, dental caries is on the increase. If the children do not have sweets, they are likely to buy a bun, which has no nutritional value it just fills them up. I do not accept that a nutritional survey is necessarily an argument for removing something which is naturally at hand and which the children can take in line with other children.
The only comment I should like to make on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is on this aspect of administrative convenience, of tidying up. We have heard so much in recent years, not only from the present Government but also from Governments of the past, that for administrative purposes, tidying-up purposes, it is more convenient to do so-and-so. I suggest that it is not going to be at all a tidying process to pull the teeth out of children at fourteen or fifteen and provide them with artificial dentures. Yet I am convinced that this is exactly what is going to happen if we encourage

855
children by their own volition, or through the natural laziness of their parents—because parents are lazy—to eat in the mid-morning break foods that are not suitable. If the Government feel that seven to eleven is the wrong period, then why cannot they suggest a period that is administratively more convenient. I understand that schools work in groups of four to eight, eight to twelve and twelve upwards. Let us have milk available in the primary and middle schools. I fail to see the reasoning of the noble Lord's argument there.
LORD STONHAM: Like the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, I am no nutritional expert, but one does not need to be an expert to know the effect of school milk on children. My noble friend Lady Summerskill has given a doctor's evidence on this, but anyone who is not completely blind to facts can see it everywhere he goes. As a result of school milk the whole nation has been substantially upgraded in health. My noble friend Lady Summerskill said that this is a Cabinet decision and that it would not have been made if any Member of the Cabinet had seen hungry children. I have. I have certainly seen one hungry child, aged about one year. This child was bandy-legged. It had started to try to walk, and one leg turned over. The child was then introduced to milk, and was given all that it needed to drink and to eat. At times it was amusing to see the child consuming large quantities of food, because it was hungry. It took several years of proper feeding before that undersized, puny child had straight limbs on which to walk. The child will never have good teeth: the teeth were rotten as soon as they were formed.
When my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy said that noble Lords opposite may have to stand up to be counted on this issue, I felt that they ought not to stand up and be counted before they realised what they were voting about. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has done his best to deal with details that do not matter. Most of the things that have been discussed in this debate do not matter. It does not matter how much has been spent, or will be spent, on new primary schools: it ought to be spent, anyway.
856
This Amendment is concerned with the health of children. This Bill is a crime against a whole generation of children. I think it is far more important than the Industrial Relations Bill. The health of the whole of the future nation is at stake. This is not just theory, or someone from a political Party speaking about it. This will really happen if children are deprived in this way. The noble Baroness opposite said, quite rightly, that money is spent on cigarettes, pools and sweets that should be spent on milk for children. But it is still the children about whom we are talking, and if the Government take away this milk, the children will not have milk regularly. That is the most important thing. It is their"elevenses"every day, and it is put into them.
I think it was Winston Churchill who once said that the finest way of building up a healthy nation was to put milk into babies. This is the literal truth. The object of this Bill is to take milk away when they are a little older than babies. But we are talking about children of seven and a halt according to the noble Lord; and they are babies. To stop this small amount of milk every day of the week is a real deprivation and its effect will be seen in their figures—not in statistics. The noble Lord can mull through the civil servants' notes and come up with a confusing answer, as he has to-day, but he will not get away from the fact that the nation's health will be adversely affected. Noble Lords may smile, but this is the fact. I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment. If you do not, but decide to stand up and be counted on the other side, I hope you will realise that you are deliberately depriving children of necessary substance. I do not think that any noble Lord in this House would knowingly do this; but that is what they will be doing. I support the Amendment.
5.45 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should like to say straight away that I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I appreciate very much the effort that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made to make bricks out of milk straws. I think he has the sympathy of the whole Committee. One has the feeling that his instincts are right, and that if a decision of this kind had

857
to be made by him it would not be made. I hope that I do the noble Lord no injustice, and I certainly wish him no harm in saying that. But if I am any judge of character, I would think that he cannot relish the task that has been thrown upon him.
This is a small Bill, and a figure of £9 million may not be much when one considers the fantastic sums that are spent on other things. The concern that has been shown in this Committee is an indication that it is a matter of priorities, and while it is only a matter of £9 million, children between the age of seven and eleven count a great deal. I think it right and proper that we should take a deal of time in considering what we do, or fail to do, in order to enable them to benefit as much as possible from their years at school. I do not think anybody would dare to contest the statement that the underfed child is unable fully to take advantage of the education offered to it.
I am extremely pleased that this afternoon I am supported by two professionals. My noble friend Baroness Summerskill speaks of course as a doctor. I am also supported in tabling this Amendment by my noble friend Lady Phillips, who speaks from long experience as a teacher: I can only speak as a layman. To those of your Lordships who have suggested that we can wait until we see malnutrition developing before we decide to do anything about it—because that is what some statements made on the other side amount to—may I say that my mind goes back to the years before the war when I visited a school and saw a boy with sores on his legs. I inquired of the headmaster why this was so, and he replied:"Because he is undernourished." There was a manager at that school, and I said:"That boy ought to be taken before the doctor at once." Your Lordships may think that the headmaster ought to have acted on his own. But it was not easy in those days, when attitudes towards providing free milk and school meals were so vastly different from what they are to-day.
I am a little surprised that so many of your Lordships should think that parents are going to make a public showing of their poverty. After all, people are not proud of poverty. I hope that that point may be taken. A number of points that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made will fall to be answered in regard to later
858
Amendments, but I would warn him—and I would say to the Committee—that, before too much notice is taken of what is going to happen next September, I trust the Committee will appreciate the failure to take up family income supplements on the scale that we are advised by the Department is the case at the moment. It will be more appropriate perhaps to go into that aspect a little more thoroughly later.
May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley: do not underestimate what lop a week means to a poor family. It means two shillings per child—and, of course, halfpennies and new pennies count more than they used to do—or four shillings a week for two children and many families will have two children in this age group. So it means a very considerable sum. And if your Lordships have no conception of the importance of money like this, then may I say again that I think some figures may be produced in relation to subsequent Amendments which will surprise one or two of your Lordships who appear to think that this is a land flowing with milk and honey for everybody. If we talk about averages, let us remember those who are below the line.
I always enjoy listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for his sincerity is evident, and I remember how kind he was to me when I made my maiden speech. I always listen to the noble Viscount with care, but I do not think that he understands how some people live. I am quite sure that if he did understand he would not have made the speech he did this evening. It is absolutely no use running away with the notion that this Bill will not cause hardship. It is going to cause hardship, and since the amount of money is, comparatively, so small, it is avoidable hardship, and the Government ought not to be responsible for imposing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was very fair and quite entitled to draw attention to the oversights made in 1968. I hope this Government is never responsible for any oversights; and if we have been responsible for oversights then there is no reason, if they have been recognised, why further oversights should be made now. But the oversight we did not make in 1968 was to deprive schoolchildren aged seven to eleven of school

859
milk. We decided that it was a risk that could not be taken. I am not going to defend the decision to deprive secondary schoolchildren of school milk. I never have defended it, and I do not propose to do so now. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that if he continues to argue in that sort of way he will soon be arguing that we can safely deprive the five to seven-year-olds as well; and I wonder whether the object of the Secretary of State is not at some time to destroy free milk and the school meals service entirely. If we are going to listen to the kind of speeches made in the other place, and one or two of those that have been made here already this evening, a great many people will be inclined to think that the welfare side of education is not at the present time in safe hands.
I do not defend the oversights in 1968, but the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has drawn attention to what the last Government did not do in regard to replacing old and unsatisfactory primary schools. At least he might have said that we did introduce the idea of educational priority areas. The then Secretary of State thought that was a very desirable priority in regard to primary school improvements. But there was a very great need indeed to give attention to the needs of secondary schools. We have had to provide a considerable amount of new building. If we had not, what would have happened? Many of your Lordships will be members of boards of governors and some, like myself, will be chairmen, and
they will know the numbers of over-large classes that we have had in our secondary schools. Something had to be done about them.
We were dealing with an age group which not merely deserved but was entitled to opportunities for specialist education that the old secondary schools did not afford. But the noble Lord might also take note of the fact that the Secretary of State then was under an obligation to provide additional secondary school accommodation to meet the situation arising from the raising of the school-leaving age which is due to take place in 1972. I have already reminded the Committee that the present Administration, in terms of improvements or replacements of secondary schools, is making no provision at all for the years 1972 to 1974.
Attention has been drawn to the defects of this Amendment, and I have little doubt that attention will be drawn to the defects of other Amendments. If your Lordships will carry this Amendment, if the Government want to they can remedy the defects. If they do not desire to remedy the defects, then I give this undertaking: that in so far as my friends are able to assist me I will table Amendments at a later stage that may overcome any such difficulties. Finally, may I remind the Committee that we are talking about one-third of a pint of milk for each child between the age of seven and eleven.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Energlyn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Foot, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fulton, L.

London, L.Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gardiner, L.

McLeavy, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Blyton, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Boothby, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Bristol, L.Bp.

Hawke, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hayter, L.

Reay, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henderson, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Byers, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chorley, L.

Hunt, L.

Seear, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Swaythling, L.

White, Bs.

Strang, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Alport, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monck, V.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hacking, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

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

St. Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Sandford, L.

Colgrain, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ilford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jessel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Tenby, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, after (" and ") insert (" either ").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. With the permission of the Committee, I will speak to Amendment No. 4 as No. 2 is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 4. Here we are concerned with the preventive value of milk. As was discussed in the previous Amendment, we are trying to make the point that it is better to prevent rather than to attempt to cure. We know that areas of poverty exist in our society to a degree which is a challenge to us. It is useful to remind ourselves of some of the situations to be seen in Wales, the Midlands and the North, particularly in view of some of the comments made by noble Lords on the last Amendment. Some of the figures I shall give have been quoted in another place and can easily be substantiated.
In the North there are a quarter of a million men over the age of 21 earning less than £24 gross per week—I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is not in his
862
place. That involves 39 per cent. of the men employed. This sum of £24 is what they receive before national insurance or any other deductions have been made, and it is inclusive of overtime. This total includes 21,000 men with gross earnings under £15 per week. Those with gross earnings of between £15 and £20 number another 116,000. I know that again I shall be told by the Minister that we have the family income supplement. Although the figures vary on the lack of take up, I quote the one printed in a Sunday newspaper yesterday which alleged that only 13 per cent. of those entitled had taken up this supplement. The Minister may disagree with this, but at least he cannot tell me that 50 per cent. of those entitled have already taken up their entitlement.
No one will question that the people in these areas can easily be identified. None of your Lordships will question the view that it is infinitely preferable to prevent the occurrence of medical need rather than to try to cure the condition. Surely it is better to avoid damage rather than to wait to see if it occurs, as my noble friend has previously explained. I call in aid of this Amendment the fact that a certain Mrs. Simey, a councillor, reported that a study had taken place in an area in Liverpool where they were more concerned about the social milk

863
than the medical milk. I am not sure whether all your Lordships have appreciated that the Bill does not accept the idea of poverty at all; it deals merely with the social effect. She states that a remarkable study was undertaken in Liverpool of social malaise in children. The people looked into the various factors which led to this malaise. They found that broken homes were involved, that mental backwardness was the result of mental and physical fatigue, and that in certain areas there was great poverty.
It is not difficult to identify the areas to which this Amendment refer. The Bill already excepts the principle of special categories. Milk cannot be supplied except to these special categories. We see that free school meals are given in very high proportion in certain areas. That gives an indication of the areas with which this Amendment is concerned. In the North-East, in Gateshead, 44 per cent. of school meals provided are free. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 47 per cent. of the meals are free. In South Shields the figure is 49 per cent. In some counties in Wales 36 per cent. are free.
We are not asking that every area should necessarily be included. We are asking that it should be possible to identify large areas. This can easily be done; we all know the areas of poverty; we know the areas which have already been decreed as areas of development. This is a simple Amendment, and I appeal to the humanity of your Lordships—something which I have seen in relation to other matters that we have discussed—to make it possible to incorporate these Amendments in the Bill.
6.10 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: I certainly acknowledge the motive which lies behind the Amendments. The"logic of positive discrimination ", the phrase the Plowden Committee coined, is the practical method which those of us interested and involved in education know for giving special attention where it is most needed. In this respect my heart warms to the Amendments. The noble Baroness perhaps will not be surprised if I say that the Amendments as drafted certainly present special problems and I would put it to your Lordships that I think that the Bill renders them in some ways unnecessary.
864
In introducing these Amendments the noble Baroness was quite specific in regard to details of income in certain parts of the country, and the Committee I think followed her with the greatest interest. I only wish that the Amendments were equally specific. They are open to the objection that they are vague. For instance, what is"a significant number "? What is"area or part of an area "? I am not saying this in any hair-splitting frame of mind. If your Lordships look carefully at the text of the Bill it will be seen that these Amendments would lay a duty on the authorities for the provision of free school milk in these areas. It has been the principle, anyway in educational priority areas, that such have never been designated. The Department of Education has criteria and indeed there are criteria for the urban programme, and by this method decisions are reached on where and how special assistance shall be given—a different concept, if I may say so, to a duty that pupils in vaguely defined circumstances should receive free school milk.
The certificate imposing that duty would fall to the medical officer. This is in the text of the Amendments. I should have thought that there would be drawbacks on ethical grounds for a medical officer to give a blanket certificate to children in certain areas without having even examined those concerned. I look round for noble Lords in the medical profession in the House; perhaps the noble Baroness will be speaking again in a moment. It is not a debating point, I should have thought there were severe drawbacks on ethical grounds to this. Clause 1(1)(b) already covers the position of older pupils with a health requirement. If the medical officer thinks that a pupil or a number of pupils need milk on health grounds it is open to the medical officer to certify to this effect, but of course on an individual basis. It has always been the aim of central Government, local government and members of the teaching profession to see that those who receive free school meals should not be identified. This is a matter to which the Department of Education referred quite recently in Circular 3/71 on February 9 of this year. As we know, sometimes schools are not entirely successful in this most difficult of tasks. Sometimes the teachers are wonderfully

865
successful, and if they are they have achieved an objective which I am sure is common ground to both sides of this Committee. I realise that milk on medical grounds will probably breach this objective—the objective that children should not be identified when they are receiving not a benefit but a right. My right honourable friend gave this matter very careful thought and we were certain in the end that, on balance, the advantage lay in making milk available on these grounds.
Consider the alternative offered by these Amendments. The Amendments are totally unselective. If a medical officer gives a certificate for an area or part of an area it is for every pupil regardless of need. In another place an Amendment was moved in the Standing Committee to equate free meals with free milk, once again, something with which one has the greatest sympathy; but in having to resist it the Government were able to say in reply that it was calculated that the cost would be about £1.2 million. I am not in that happy circumstance this afternoon. The cost of these Amendments is unlimited and it is to avoid spreading help indiscriminately that in framing this Bill we have had regard to the increased and new social security rights which are being instituted this year (and I referred to them at great length on the previous Amendment), which will go to those who need them, and which can be costed.
Before finishing may I just say that I meant it sincerely when I said to the noble Baroness that I had every sympathy with these Amendments. But on the last Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, referred in his closing remarks to monitoring, and drew attention to the danger that monitoring might be shutting the door after the horse had bolted; that malnutrition might have occurred and would not be discovered until monitoring had occurred. I would, for the Record, make it absolutely clear that monitoring (and the details which I gave to the House on a previous Amendment) is not something that is going to happen; it is already happening. Earlier I mentioned Kent and Birmingham, and although I know that this is not the whole answer I would like to make it clear that the steps which the Government are taking, and which, of course, were left over
866
from the previous Government, are genuine steps to see that a running check is kept on the nutritional standards of the nation.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wonder if the noble Lord would explain how monitoring is going to determine the point at which the doctor will decide that milk ought to be supplied because of its preventive value.
LORD BELSTEAD: The point at which milk should be supplied will be entirely at the discretion of the medical officer; it will be at his discretion for how long the milk shall be supplied. It will be at the discretion of the school medical officer, in the light of a great deal of other information given him by people in different services, on what grounds exactly milk shall be supplied. If monitoring returns—I know that my noble friend Lord Ilford is concerned with this side of the Bill—in the future show that nationally or regionally there is real cause for concern, then that is the moment when medical officers may be concerned, and the Government of the day will be concerned, to see that they act on the monitoring results.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It is the preventive aspect of the matter that I should like the noble Lord to devote his attention to. It is placing an enormous responsibility on the medical officer to decide in advance of anybody having noticed that malnutrition has begun or is likely to begin, and I beg the Government to appreciate that the preventive aspect is very, very important. We are dealing with an age group where risks are not warranted.
LORD BELSTEAD: Perhaps we could return to the preventive aspect from the point of view of the medical officers on the next Amendment. On the preventive aspect from the point of view of central Government, I put to the Committee on the last Amendment that already there have been informal contacts between those who are undertaking monitoring exercises at the moment, and I said it was our impression at the Department of Education that the view we have from the School Medical I Service, as a result of surveys, is that the nutrition of the children of this country is not declining but improving.

867
May I ask noble Lords a question? I should be interested to know how far noble Lords opposite have thought through the practicalities of these Amendments. Has the noble Lord, I wonder, discussed them with the local authority associations, or the Association of Education Committees. Has the noble Baroness considered the undesirability of openly drawing attention to certain areas within a local authority area when the objective can be, and we on this side of the Committee believe it will be, achieved through social security rather than through an allocation specifically for milk? This is the reason why the Bill makes provision for medical entitlement, which will be at the discretion of medical officers, who will obviously consider all the different aspects in a particular case. These are the reasons why there is the power to sell milk. By no means all those who need milk will necessarily be unable to pay. The social security rights which I have outlined before are relevant to these Amendments; and although I support the spirit behind the Amendments, they are, I believe, on practical grounds misconceived.
6.22 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: The Minister says that we have not thought through the practical effects of these Amendments. I believe that the Government have not thought through the practical difficulties and practical effects of their measures. I do not think noble Lords opposite realise what we find so objectionable about the whole of what we consider to be the not very substantial economies which will result from their measures. I call the measures they are indulging in at the moment a sort of"dunce's cap"measures. We have the dunce's cap; we have the poverty cap; we have the medical cap—all this categorising of children, which obviously is not a good thing at all. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about selling milk, I am always rather amused at this proposition, because we have been told that free milk has been thrown down the drain. However, when the Government are going to sell milk, then parents are going to pay for it and children are going to drink it. There seems to me something very odd about this contention.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I want to answer a question the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, put to me. I think the whole House realises that he is speaking from a very weak brief, which the last Division proved. I was astonished when he descended to a most curious argument in asking me whether the medical profession would not disapprove of what he called a blanket certificate. Does he realise that when nutritional policy was introduced many years ago the medical profession did not insist that before every child was given milk at school the child should be examined? The medical profession believes in preventive medicine. During the war we distributed food according to needs. The noble Lord, by the way, tried to answer the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, by saying that what he said was due to the fact that a war was on. The war came into the matter only because the Government were then in a strong position to say,"Now we will feed people according to their needs and they will not be able to demand food according to the amount of money in their pockets." We distributed food to certain sections; we gave more of a certain kind because it was necessary.
The medical profession would not disapprove of this. The medical profession in this century knows that prevention is infinitely better than cure. That is the essence of modern medicine. If the medical profession was told that some area where the average income was low was where children were going to be given milk or meals, the noble Lord need not worry that there would be an outcry from the British Medical Association. They would say,"Thank Heavens we have a humane Government! "
LORD BELSTEAD: I would suggest to your Lordships that there is not so much between the two sides of the Committee on this Amendment. I asked Lady Summerskill a question and she has given me the answer. I entirely take from the noble Baroness that the medical profession would approve of a certificate of this kind. Under the Amendment, this would be done in blanket form: under the Bill, it would be done in individual form. If the movers of the Amendment are correct in their assumption, as they may very well be, that there are areas or parts of areas which need this special help, then it will be given through

869
the Bill. The only point is that it will be dealt with on an individual basis by doctors seeing the children concerned individually. That is the difference between the two sides of the Committee, and I suggest it is not as great as perhaps noble Lords at the beginning of the debate on this Amendment may have thought.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not know whether he unconsciously missed the point. Knowing him, I feel sure he was not trying to mislead us. But there is a vast difference between deciding an area where there should be a blanket certificate and examining specific and individual children. May I remind the noble Lord of what was said in another place—I am not sure whether it was said by the Minister or a Junior Minister—when asked about the method of determining whether a child was entitled to have milk. The reply was that every child is medically examined on the first entry to school, and any who at this stage show signs that the continuation of milk might be necessary will be noted for further examination. That is very specific; and if we are trying to avoid embarrassment, I would say that that could be extraordinarily embarrassing, if a child is set aside and it is said,"You are obviously in need of further examination and we will give you milk ". Unless things have changed considerably, a child can miss a medical examination. So far as I recall, the Act says that a child has to be medically examined three times throughout the whole of his school life. Many children do not have more examinations than just that. A terrible extra burden is going to be placed on the already overworked medical officers, whichever way the Government try to deal with this issue. But I feel it would be easy specifically to note an area.
The noble Lord made the point that the phrase"significant number"is very vague and that"area or part of an area"is very vague. I think he will find that both these phrases have been used in Acts of Parliament. This may or may not be an argument in their defence; there may be vague phrases in Acts of Parliament, but we are not introducing words which are not already used in legislation. The noble Lord also said that there was the opportunity to sell
870
milk. Again, the Bill is curiously contradictory on this point. It seems to give milk free to all children attending special schools. Children who attend special schools are not necessarily all in need of free milk, so there is a curious anomaly here. And since the noble Lord is speaking about procedures and difficulties, I would refer him to the procedure the parent has to go through if he or she thinks a child needs milk. These were the suggestions given by the Minister in another place. She can approach the headmaster, she can approach the child's teacher, she can approach the educational welfare officer for the district (always supposing that she can find him and ask for the child to be seen by the school doctor, or she can ask the family doctor to make representations to the school doctor in order that the child may be seen. Surely nothing could be more complicated than that. As I said last week when we were talking about social security, my experience is that the less literate people are the more difficulty they have in understanding the ways in which they can obtain their rights.
The blanket exception of an area will eliminate all these problems. There will not be a great number of areas, please God!, because we hope that things will be better eventually, but in the meantime it will give an opportunity to those areas that I have named specifically. There are quite easy ways of identifying them, which the Minister will recognise, and I ask again that he will take the opportunity to take this Amendment back and reconsider it. Perhaps the Government will bring forward a better Amendment because we know that we shall be told that they are all badly drafted. As I said last week, this puzzles me. I have drafted resolutions and amendments all my life, but when it comes to Parliamentary draftsmanship it seems that simple words do not have any meaning at all. However, I know from my own small excursion into Government that if the Government really want an Amendment the drafting is a small matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to add one sentence to the arguments which have been put forward. One of the most outstanding features about the Plowden Report was that it gave extra

871
help to certain areas, and it seems to me that there would be no objection to defining areas which were also defined by the Plowden Report.
6.40 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, after (" by ") insert (" a qualified medical practitioner or ").
The noble Lord said: I rise again to move this Amendment which I have tabled jointly with my noble friends Lady Phillips and Lady Summerskill. During the Second Reading debate there was some discussion about bringing in the family doctor to help in regard to the issuing of medical certificates, to the effect
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ardwick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Seear, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strang, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Reay, L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Atholl, D.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monck, V.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Bethell, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

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

Sandford, L.

Colgrain, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Ilford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jessel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Swaythling, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Tenby, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

that a pupil's health required that he should be provided with milk at school, and of course the discussion was concerned with free milk. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke most sympathetically, and in reply to a question which he himself posed, asking why the family doctor should not have a hand in any recommendation for free milk, I understood him to say that he cordially agreed, and that if we gave the Bill a Second Reading it was a matter we might like to look at more closely.
This Amendment provides just that opportunity for that closer look, and for

873
a real and practical demonstration, if I may say so with respect, not only of sympathy on the noble Lord's part, but of what is more important, understanding. I fancy it is the sort of gesture we have reason to anticipate we might expect to see from him, not on his performance on this Bill but on his general performance in the House in the past. He recognises, as he said at Second Reading, that the family doctor knows his patients, and by accepting this Amendment he will show his faith in the medical practitioner as the responsible and trustworthy person we know him or her to be.
One of the most remarkable features of this Bill is that nowhere does it recognise that family income may be too low to permit the purchase of school milk. The only grounds on which free milk may be obtained for the seven to eleven year olds is by way of medical certificates certifying medical need. It does not matter how poor the family. For once the Government apply no means test, only a medical needs test. I think many members of the Committee feel, with me, that an impossible load is being placed on the school medical officer. I do hope the Minister will not repeat the arguments and suggestions that were advanced in another place. I trust he will go further than he did on Second Reading, when he spoke of the child's doctor having a hand in recommending the bringing to the notice of the school medical officer any need in the child, as I understood him then to put it.
Surely if a qualified general practitioner certifies need that ought to be enough. What more can be required? If a general practitioner recommends that milk ought to be supplied for medical reasons, then I suggest to the Committee it ought to be available without further difficulty. If it is not to be automatic approval of the recommendation of the general practitioner, what is going to happen if the school medical officer disagrees? I do suggest that if it is seriously put forward that the general practitioner ought properly to be brought in, and then when he has made a recommendation the school medical officer is in a position not to approve it, a very difficult situation indeed will have been created.
I think it would be helpful, accepting so much that is wrong in the Bill, if this Amendment could be made; at least, it would ease the position very considerably. I hope the view will be taken, not only by the Committee but by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that this is a constructive Amendment, that it meets points raised on Second Reading by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and I hope it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD AUCKLAND: Having listened throughout the Committee stage of this Bill, and having read fairly thoroughly the proceedings in another place, I am bound to say that taking the Bill as a whole it is very much a"curate's egg"of a Bill. There is a good deal of logic behind a number of the recommendations, but I am bound to say that some of the arguments that have been put forward have been taken in a somewhat cavalier fashion, if I may say so, by our Front Bench on this side.
If I may turn to this Amendment, it is a slightly different Amendment from what I proposed during the course of my Second Reading speech, because I proposed then, in a somewhat hurried speech at a very late hour on a Friday afternoon, that there should be consultation with the family doctor, rather than his recommendations a an alternative. In column 1373 at the Second Reading my noble friend Lord Belstead, in a very thoughtful and reasoned reply, did say—and I paraphrase what he said in the interests of time—that he cordially agreed with what I recommended, and went on to say that there were certain difficulties, as instanced in another place.
As I said earlier, I have read the proceedings of another place in Standing Committee, and of course there are two difficulties which can immediately be raised, and it would be fair to recognise them. The first is that it is an imposition on the family doctor's time. One recognises this. Bat at the same time, as has been pointed out, it is an imposition on the school medical officer's time as well. Secondly, it can be argued that a child moving with its parents into a new area may not have registered with a family doctor, or the family doctor may not be familiar with the child. At the same

875
time, presumably, if necessary the family doctor can liaise with the doctor in the area whence the child originally came.
I do think this is a case where the family doctor ought to have an important say. After all, the conditions under which the exemptions will be made to the Bill are basically conditions in which the child needs milk through malnutrition or something of that kind, and it is the family doctor who is the best judge of this, the doctor who knows the child. The school medical officer deals with a great many children, possibly from different areas if it is a school covering a large area. The family doctor nowadays may admittedly have a large patient roll, but he or she is the person closest to the child and to the child's parents. Although I do not think the Amendment as drafted would completely meet the case, I do hope that my noble friend will give very careful consideration to it, and make consultation with the family doctor a much easier job than it is now.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I feel the mistake that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has made throughout the debates on this Bill is to over-simplify matters. He has been in a difficult position. Sometimes, even quite passionately, he has explained to the Committee that the whole thing is quite simple: here is a child suffering from malnutrition; that child will be identified by one of the medical officers; the medical officer will give a certificate; and immediately the child will be given more food. The mistake he makes is to identify the physiological condition of malnutrition with the pathological condition. He almost suggests, as I have said before, that malnutrition might be accompanied by a rash so that a doctor could come along and say,"This is malnutrition ". In order to show how difficult this problem is, let me just read to the Committee what the journal The Teacher wrote:
" The medical officers of health of London decided it was impossible to find a satisfactory medical definition of which children will qualify. Doctor A. B. Stewart, medical adviser to the Inner London Education Authority, said that the problem was to identify those children who were undernourished. But there was no ready-made way of doing this. If half-a-dozen doctors were asked to pick out the undernourished children from a group,
876
they would come up with half a dozen different answers."
This is the problem we are faced with.
I regard this Amendment, which of course I shall speak to, as an Amendment which is trying to improve a very bad Bill. The only answer is to feed the children. To introduce a small army of doctors, whether they are medical officers or general practitioners, to try to diagnose malnutrition is bound to fail. The Chief Medical Officer was quite right when he said this. At the moment we have a number of medical officers, and we know they are in very short supply. These medical officers, we are told to-day, perhaps manage to examine each child once a year. If the child is examined in August, what happens to it during all the cold months in the Northern counties? It is not going to be examined at all unless we have a number of ancillary workers—and I presume the teachers are going to be asked to do this—who will, in a kind of a non-professional way (I mean non-medical way) think,"Well, that child looks rather pale and worn out. We must do something about it." We have not been told who the ancillary workers are going to be. All we know is that the medical officers are in very short supply, and they will not be able to examine every child in the country regularly and thoroughly.
Therefore, this Amendment is introduced really to augment the number of doctors. It is suggested that the general practitioner should be invited also to report and certify a child. Now let us picture what is going to happen. Again, I wish that the Cabinet could see into the crowded waiting room of a general practitioner in the industrial areas, where patients sometimes have to wait for an hour or two: where they are often standing; where the harassed doctor—whose expectation of life, if you look in the obituaries of the British Medical Journal, is one of the shortest in the country—knows that the sanction exists that if he makes a wrong diagnosis the coroner could walk in. These are all the pressures upon him.
We are now coming along in this cool, quiet Parliament of ours and saying that this is an excellent idea;"We will add the general practitioner, who knows the family ". Of course he knows many families. In many cases he has attended

877
the child at confinement. He knows the habits of the father. He knows whether the father drinks too much, smokes too much, or indulges in all the little habits which noble Lords on the other side say that he should not do, but he should feed his children. I would like to say, in parenthesis, that this is a 19th-century argument that we heard to-day, and I could scarcely believe my ears when I heard that if men drank and smoked, and did not feed their children, then of course the child should suffer. What an argument! We should punish the child for the drawbacks of his parents!
I was hoping, of course, that Parliament to-day would say that, if the child's parents are feckless, the child must not be punished for this; let the milk go straight into its stomach, and then we shall know that it is being fed. We are suggesting in this Amendment that the doctor who knows the family should come in. Let us have the whole picture. In a feckless family the woman is probably having to work outside, because the husband may well drink his money. She works in a soul-destroying factory all day, comes home to her little terraced home, cleans it, provides a meal, and gets into bed absolutely exhausted. The child is not looking too well, but she knows what this would mean if she went to the doctor. She would have to go in the evening, sit in that crowded waiting room, wait for attention.
In most cases these women know more or less what are the symptoms of pathological conditions from which children would suffer, and if they suffer that kind of symptom: yes, she is a devoted mother, struggling against all kinds of odds, but she will then certainly go along to the surgery. However, she will not go there if the child is fit enough to get about, to go out and play in the street, and to get along to school. So this kind of provision you are making now will only be partial. She will go when the child is suffering, or has a high temperature, and the doctor will not say,"Look here, this child wants better feeding ", because so many mothers would regard that as an affront. What is it suggested he would do? In a nice way, he would say,"I think the child wants more milk at school."
878
Let us impress again that what we are asking for is a third of a pint of milk—that is all—per day. He will say,"I think he wants perhaps extra milk ", but he has to go very gently because, when the certificate is given, the street will soon know about it and the mother is then marked because she is a woman"who has not properly fed her children ". The doctor has given a certificate because he thinks it is suffering from under-nourishment. Here are the complications. Here we are introducing the poor, overworked, harassed general practitioner. We are introducing the mothers of the neighbourhood into a waiting room for this purpose. Most of them will not go. Most of the children with the condition that we are thinking about, malnourished children, will continue to be mal-nourished.
Although I am absolutely supporting this suggestion, nevertheless I know the picture perfectly well and what will happen. This is only trying to patch up a nasty, cruel little Bill. There is only one way of ensuring that these children will be properly nourished, and that is to ensure that the milk is taken at school. I agree with what has been said before: giving the child the money to spend on its way to school is asking for it to go to the sweet shop. The only way to protect this child, and to ensure it is properly cared for, is to see that it is fed at school, and then you can dispense with all these schemes, good as they may appear on paper but which in practice I am afraid will be not very effective.
7.0 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: I intervene to-night only for a moment, because the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was good enough to make an observation about something I said during the Second Reading debate. I think she did not quite follow the point that I was endeavouring to put—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I allowed the noble Lord to remain anonymous. I did not mention him to-day.
LORD ILFORD: I thought the noble Baroness's indication sufficiently accurate for me to undertake to reply. All that I did on Second Reading was this. I pointed out that the withdrawal of milk from the eleven to fourteen age group

879
had apparently not been followed by malnutrition, or by any undesirable results. This debate has proceeded for quite a long time and a great many speeches have been made, but nobody has ever contested that. No one has ever argued that we ought to be warned by what happened when milk for that age group was withdrawn. If there had been any evidence that the withdrawal of milk then was followed by malnutrition or by harmful results, then I am quite sure that we should have heard about it and that this Committee would have regarded that as sufficient evidence to justify our not going on with this Bill. But that has not been said, and we must assume that the withdrawal of milk from the older group has not been followed by any of the disastrous consequences which have been predicted.
The other point that I desire to make is this. Throughout this debate we seem to have assumed that if the mothers had to pay for their milk they would not buy it; that is to say, when the school milk ceased the mothers would not replace it with milk which they had bought themselves. I do not think we should assume that that is going to be the case. I imagine that when school milk ceased a good many mothers said,"Very well, as we do not get the advantage of milk from school we may as well buy it from our own milkman." I should think a great many mothers have purchased the milk from their own milkman. I do not think we should assume that mothers are so neglectful, and that because school milk ceases there will be no milk at all for the children. I am going to support this Bill for I believe that it will do no harm and will in fact do good.
LORD SLATER: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, saying that the parents ought to be responsible and should provide the milk by buying it from their own milkman. I do not know where the noble Lord lives, but there are some people in this country who cannot even leave a bottle of milk outside someone's door. They either break it or take it away, with the result that many people find that their milk bill goes up week after week. That is simply because of the vandals who go around breaking bottles. The evidence is there to see and it happens in my own area. I should like to take
880
the noble Lords back to the last world war. My wife and I had the unfortunate experience of having our eldest daughter seriously ill. She had almost reached eleven years of age, and a friend said to my wife,"If I were you, I should have another opinion about your daughter ". So they carried that kiddie in blankets along to the school, because the county medical officer of health was in attendance. He wanted to know the name of the medical practitioner who had been attending to the child and he said to my wife,"Are you aware that that child ought to have been receiving extensive treatment?"She was put into the R.V.I. up in Newcastle and she received treatment, followed by a period of convalescence. But it was too late and, after a while, she passed on into a new state of existence and left us. That was during the war and there was no milk in those days.
There is a lot in what my noble friend Lady Summerskill said about the local practitioners. I sometimes meet the local practitioners in my own area and they are overworked because there are not enough of them, although they receive a capitation fee for every patient under their control. There will be extra work if this Amendment is carried, but this is a means of safeguarding the unfortunate child who is not receiving the care and succour which it ought to receive from the parents. It may be in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that we could reach a position where we are too ready to remove parental responsibility, but there may be many cases where unfortunate children are neglected because of the action of their own parents. There is something to be said for having a qualified medical practitioner—and I made some reference to this point on the Industrial Relations Bill—because local authorities, rural authorities and even county authorities have people who can be called upon if required. I sincerely hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to accept this Amendment, which goes some way to assisting these unfortunate children.
7.9 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: The effect of these Amendments would be to oblige a local education authority to provide free milk on a certificate from a doctor. The Bill requires the certificate to be given by a

881
medical officer of the authority. It is perfectly true that at the previous stage of the Bill I promised your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend Lord Auckland, that this matter would be looked at with the greatest care before the present stage of the Bill. I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend who said, in effect, that there is a case for the family doctor to have an important say in this matter. I certainly agree that where it is desirable a pupil's doctor should contact the medical officer, and it can be assumed that the medical officer would give weight to any such advice. I followed the noble Lord, Lord Slater, carefully in his speech, and I think it would be right for me to say to the noble Lord that it is the intention of the Department of Education and Science to issue a circular in the event of the passing of this Bill. The sort of points to which the noble Lord was drawing attention, and those to which many of your Lordships have drawn attention in this debate, about the necessity for consultation, the necessity for people other than the medical officer to have a say in a particular case, will be borne in mind in the drafting of that circular.
However, although the medical officer is, at the moment, in the Bill as the certificating authority, the health of pupils obviously often involves other people. First, there is the family doctor, who would, where necessary, we hope notify a school about a child's health. Then there are the education welfare officers, who I think it is fair to say spend the major part of their time liaising between home and school. Then there are the child care officers and their colleagues in the probation and other local authority services, all and any of whom, along with the parents, can bring to the notice of the medical officer the necessity to issue a certificate under this Bill. Therefore, in some circumstances people other than the medical officer will play a part in the procedure laid down in Clause 1 (1)(b), and evidence other than that of the school medical officer's own eyes and expertise will influence a particular decision.
The intention of these Amendments may be to relieve medical officers of an extra burden. Although the work of the school medical services is ever expanding I really do not believe that a substantial
882
extra burden will ensue from these provisions, partly because, of course, schoolchildren are under surveillance now. I must be honest with your Lordships and say that this is a decision which, after further advice, I have reached since the previous stage of the Bill. I am advised, however, that if eventually any local authority feels impelled to appoint more staff to fulfil their duty under the Bill, then the fact that there is no Money Resolution in this Bill would not make their action something which is unlawful. Although there is no difference of opinion on the value of advice from family doctors in this matter, we still believe that certificates should actually be issued by the medical officers of the authority; and in case the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, thinks I am simply being hard-headed, may I give two reasons? First, local education authorities will be responsible for the carrying out of the regulations which fall to be drafted under this Bill, including the expenditure for milk on health grounds, and it seems only right that the authority's own medical officer should be the person who issues the certificates which will exist by virtue of the Bill.
Secondly, it will be more probable that uniformity of practice will be achieved by standing by this stipulation. As your Lordships may know, and as I have said, the Department of Education intends to issue a circular. A good deal has been made in another place of the intention which has been enunciated by Ministers that there will not be specific instructions to medical officers. But their professional judgment will be, as I indicated, amplified by advice. Medical officers have long experience of identifying children who need special consideration. It will be for medical officers to judge, and to indicate on the certificate the period for which school milk is required. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, mentioned what happens in the case of disagreement. I tried to make clear on Second Reading—and it was also made clear in another place—that ultimately the decision will be that of the medical officer. Frankly, we think that this is the fairest way in which this matter could be implemented and that more than by any other method this is the way in which uniformity of practice is likely to be effected.

883
If I may add just one more remark, I seriously wonder, along with my noble friend Lord Auckland, whether general practitioners would really welcome this duty, which obviously may involve liaising with welfare services and other doctors in regard to children who, in this context, are the responsibility of the medical officer. I hope that the Committee will understand that, although I am entirely in sympathy with the idea of these Amendments, and with a great deal of what has already been said in this debate, on purely practical grounds I cannot accept the Amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, in concluding the debate on this Amendment, will not take this as an indication, which it certainly is not supposed to be, that the family doctors, and indeed the other advisory services which are available to school children, should not have the closest consultation with the medical officers in certificating under this Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer one small point? He referred to school welfare officers. Is there a school welfare officer in every primary school throughout Great Britain?
LORD BELSTEAD: No; that is too fast a ball, I am afraid. I am sorry, but I cannot help on that matter.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The more I listen to the noble Lord opposite the more I am reaching the conclusion that this Bill is a lame duck which had better never been hatched. I think it a very great pity that the noble Lord has spoken as he has, endeavouring to give the impression that he is saying something new. Certainly what he said on Second Reading led us to expect that there really would be some further thinking and something new; whereas the noble Lord knows as well as I do—he probably knows better—that what he has said has been said in another place and that he has added nothing. If this Amendment created difficulties, then I wonder why it is that the Government themselves have not tabled Amendments. They are not incapable of drafting Amendments. They are in a better position to do it than any of us on this side.
If the noble Lord alleges that medical officers would be in difficulty if this
884
Amendment were carried, I want to put to him squarely that the Government will have brought this position about. The Government could have tabled an Amendment to meet the position. They have not done so. We are told in point of fact that they are going to issue a circular. I have very little confidence in circulars which are issued from the Department of Education and Science since the noble Lord's right honourable friend has been Secretary of State. She has issued too many circulars without consulting appropriate organisations. The noble Lord will know better than I do what they are, but there are two of very great importance. I think we need to make it perfectly clear that we have reason to doubt the present Secretary of State for Education and Science when it comes to issuing circulars. I should like to know with whom she is going to consult. Did the Government consult local authority associations before they decided to draft this Bill? Did they at any point consult with the professional associations? I rather think the answer is in the negative. One wonders exactly what they have in mind by way of consultation before they issue the circular, and whether they will in fact consult the medical officers of London, who were quoted by my noble friend Lady Summerskill.
It is no use the Government pretending that the difficulties to which we are drawing attention can be easily overcome by administrative action. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that throughout the country there is resentment at what is being done. I repeat what I said on an earlier Amendment: people are not proud of poverty. Have the Government stopped to think what is to happen to the little child to whom some social worker draws attention as needing free milk? Is that little child to be taken from the classroom for a special examination by the school medical officer? Because what we are really arriving at is this situation, that the medical test is going to take the place of the means test. If it is not that, the medical test is going to be a criticism of parental inadequacy.
I do not think that the Government have seriously thought out the situation they are going to create. We are, it is true, taking a good deal of time. I had not thought that so many members of the

885
Committee would have been as interested as they are, but I am delighted. But what we are discussing is a matter of vital importance. We are discussing the lives of little children, and the noble Lord is suggesting that the school medical officer can cope with all the administrative work that is involved in issuing certificates. I think it is time that the Government realised that the school medical officers already have too much to do; that we are not able to create in considerable numbers the men and women of the calibre we should like to have. We ought to bring in the general practitioners as partners in this business. If a general practitioner certifies that a child is in need of milk—and preventive milk, at that—in many cases I should have thought that his word was quite sufficient. If there are difficulties in the Bill, they are of the Government's own making and they merely indicate that this is a thoroughly badly thought out Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 25, leave out from (" them ") to end of line 3 on page 2.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to give local authorities what so many of them have asked for. The Association of Education Committees, at their annual general meeting, by an over-whelming majority passed the following resolution:
" That this annual general meeting of the Association of Education Committees instructs the Executive Committee to pursue vigorously with Her Majesty's Government the terms of the Education (Milk) Bill with a view to such amendment as will enable local education authorities to make appropriate provision of free milk after considering the needs of their school children of junior school age."
I would ask the Committee to consider what Sir William Alexander wrote on May 21 in the Journal of the Association of Education Committees:
" There is quite a major reaction against the policy of no free milk for primary school children over the age of seven. Indeed, this reaction is so strong that several local authorities have threatened to go on providing milk and bearing the charge on the rates."
Sir William Alexander also said:
" There are undoubtedly areas at the present time where there is a fairly high level of unemployment and where it may well be
886
that children go to school without having had anything like an adequate breakfast. There are many therefore who feel that the provision of milk for these children is a major factor in maintaining their health and indeed in enabling them to carry the load of school work successfully. It seems reasonable to argue therefore that if the Government are adamant in not being prepared to pay they should at least leave a local education authority free to make such a decision at its own expense."
Sir William Alexander followed up that statement on June 18 by saying that, while agreeing that the Government might have a right to decide that they were not prepared to provide monies for any given purpose,
" surely it is no less right for the ratepayers in the area of the local education authority, through their elected representatives on that authority, to be able to decide that they will spend their money on such a provision if they think it desirable to do so."
In Hounslow, where a penny rate produces £178,000, the cost of providing free milk for junior schoolchildren has been estimated at £27,000 a year—less than 15 per cent. of a penny rate. This is not a large sum.
Then there is the Association of Municipal Corporations. I would remind the Committee of the powerful plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, on Second Reading. He expressed the hope that the Government would be willing to consider some sort of Amendment to give local authorities the power which this Amendment seeks to confer. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, expressed the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations which can be summarised as follows. Where a local education authority wishes to continue the supply of free milk for all pupils in primary schools and is prepared itself to pay for the milk without Government aid, it ought to have the power to do so. And why not?
I raised a further point on Second Reading when I referred to difficulties which may arise when, because of reductions in the amount of milk consumed, suppliers will be discouraged. Dr. Lincoln Ralphs, Chief Education Officer of Norfolk, pointed out that in rural areas the Bill might not produce an economy because some school units were so small that suppliers would not contract to supply milk unless everyone was provided with it. I was also interested, and I trust the Committee will be interested,

887
in the following extracts from correspondence from the Deputy Clerk of Perthshire to Perthshire Members of Parliament. He wrote:
" We are still in the process of taking in tenders for the supply of milk in the next session but already the Press coverage given to the Bill seems to have persuaded more suppliers than even before that it is simply not worth their while to take milk to some outlying schools. For example, the comparatively large firm which has supplied all the schools in the central districts of the county during the past session have indicated that they will not be tendering for the next session on the ground that it is not worth their while financially if the milk is to be restricted only to pupils up to the age of seven."
I could go on quoting, but when we were discussing the last Amendment the noble Lord asked whether we had consulted the various associations and what backing we had. I hope that he will be satisfied in this connection by the quotations that I have given, that so far as the Association of Education Committees is concerned and so far as the Association of Municipal Corporations is concerned, I have fairly represented to the Committee what their views are. With regard to the point that I raised on Second Reading, I think that the noble Lord then said that it was a new point. He will take it from the two quotations that I have given that it is a valid point and one that the Government ought to face. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter. I beg to move.
7.28 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in two parts? The first is the discretion that would be given by these Amendments, which would be to provide more milk for those already receiving it free, and to provide supplies of free milk for all primary schools and for all secondary schools. This wide discretion is a reversal not only of this Government's policy—hence these Amendments—but also of the previous Government's policy, which withdrew milk specifically from secondary schools. The first point I want to put to the noble Lord is that there are many noble Lords—and my noble friend Lord Milverton, was one of them—who on Second Reading aked why the expense of providing milk at the discretion of the local authority could not be totally rate-borne. Why could this not
888
be done? Why was this not self-evidently just?
The factor which makes for an almost insurmountable difficulty here is the equalisation factor in the resources element of rate support grant. This is the part of the rate support grant policy of positive discrimination. What I am asking your Lordships clearly to understand is that if some authorities decided to avail themselves of the power in these Amendments to give free school milk to a wide range of pupils some authorities would become eligible for a larger share of the resources element grant at the expense of other authorities, and there would thus be no question of milk expenditure under these Amendments being totally rate borne. I want to make quite sure that I am not on record as saying that I totally disapprove of the policy of positive discrimination—the equalisation factor in the resources element of rate support grant. This is something which brings help to hard pressed areas. I am saying that because of this factor it would not be possible to do what so many noble Lords think would be a good thing and seems so self-evidently right until one looks at it more closely, namely, to allow local authorities to provide free milk totally on the rates.
May I turn to the second part of my reply to the noble Lord, which is the question of the penny rate to which he devoted most of his remarks. This Bill makes no alteration whatever to the powers a local authority has to devote the product of a penny rate to the benefit of people within the area of the authority. After the 1968 Milk Act withdrawing milk from secondary schools, authorities could have considered the financing of free milk in secondary schools from the product of a penny rate in just the same way as they could decide so to do now if this Bill passes into law. Your Lordships will be familiar with the power by which local authorities may devote the product of a penny rate to objectives for which they do not have a statutory duty. This of course excludes authorities which are local education authorities from devoting a penny rate to school milk.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, posed the question, why could we not change the law completely so that local

889
education authorities could do this, or, if we do not change the law, that local authorities which are not local education authorities finance free milk from the product of a penny rate? To this I would say first that any authority wishing to do so must decide with legal advice as to whether in principle under the penny rate provisions of Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1963 and its Scottish counterpart, Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, this can be done. Having decided the principle with its legal advisers, the local authority would then have to decide whether it would be practicable. For instance, a local authority which is not a local education authority and uses these penny rate powers in respect of school milk would have no access as of right to the schools except at the invitation of the local authority concerned. An authority which is not an education authority would need to consider to what extent it would be necessary to ensure that the milk which the authority was financing actually went down the throats of the pupils within its area. When you think of children going across the boundaries of different areas of local authorities, this would not be hairsplitting but would be an important and relevant point. At the same time, the local education authority concerned would need to consider whether this process financed by another authority in fact involved the local education authority in any expense, and if it did whether such expense would be ultra vires under this Bill.
Finally, it goes without saying that the district auditor would have to be satisfied that such expenditure had been lawfully incurred. I am putting these points forward in a helpful spirit. I know that it is a destructive spirit, but I am trying to be helpful. These considerations have come to us at the Department and I thought it might be useful to your Lordships if I passed them on to the House. The factors which I have put before your Lordships would need to be considered by local authorities concerned with the financing of school milk from the product of a penny rate. But this consideration would not be anything new. As I have said, the Bill in no way alters the power of authorities to spend a penny rate—a twopenny rate in Scotland—and in no way changes the consideration which
890
local authorities have to give to their powers to do this.
However, your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord Milverton, expressed the view on Second Reading that local authorities should have the power without question to provide free milk on the rates. I must point out that, quite apart from the technical difficulty I referred to at the start of my speech, the Government have responsibility for overall public expenditure. Local authority expenditure is just as much public spending as is central Government expenditure, and while the Government subscribe entirely to the principle of local autonomy we made it clear, as I pointed out on Second Reading, in the Department of the Environment Circular 2/70 that increased local authority autonomy cannot be looked at apart from the Government's responsibility for the total level and main trends of expenditure. I think it fair to repeat the questions which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on Second Reading. Why did the previous Government not do something about devoting the product of a penny rate for a subsidy for secondary school milk? Why did the previous Government not do something about this when the price of school meals began to rise? It might have been a good thing to subsidise them. I am not going to criticise the noble Lord. The answer is that there was then a similar overall responsibility for the level of public spending. For exactly the same reason we have to resist these Amendments.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Let me answer the noble Lord straight away. The previous Government did not propose depriving children aged between seven and eleven of milk, a point which apparently has not yet sunk in. That is why they did not do anything on the lines the noble Lord has suggested and they did not have official opposition to the withdrawing of free milk from secondary schools. I wish that the then official Opposition had challenged the position. They might then have been seen doing their duty more effectively, we might have been saved the embarrassment and they might have been saved the embarrassment of this Bill. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways and the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that they are giving local authorities

891
greater autonomy when they do not do anything that the authorities want them to do. If they are going to give the authorities greater freedom they have to give them power to do something which is different from their neighbours if they so want.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I ask a question of the noble Lord? Is he suggesting that we are in some way changing the rules about the product of a penny rate and in some way withdrawing local authorities' freedom in that respect?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I was coming to that point because I think it important, but I want to underline what I have been saying. The Government should not talk about giving local authorities greater freedom when they are not giving them greater freedom. They are denying the freedom for which they ask. The local authorities are asking for freedom to spend their ratepayers' money, ratepayers to whom they are responsible. All they are asking for is that if they ore education authorities they should have exactly the same right as district authorities which are not educa-
Resolved in the, negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
tion authorities. I hope that what is being asked for is clear. It is the associations that are asking for this. I cannot understand why the Government are so blind as not to see that this is a genuine request for parity in deciding how the product of a penny rate should be spent if they think that it conforms with the wishes of the people they represent. I do not think that is asking very much. I am surprised that the Government are being so adamant in their attitude to any suggestion that this Bill should be improved, because the more we discuss this Bill the more it becomes clear that it is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is alleged by us and by many outside the Labour movement that this Bill will do damage to children. At the very least, that risk is being run. Why run risks when it is unnecessary for such a paltry amount, which would not be missed by people in receipt of over £80 per week?
7.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Seear, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Hylton, L.

Slater, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacques, L.

Somers, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Janner, L.

Stonham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wade, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Bethell, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selsdon, L.

Colgrain, L.

Hailes, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

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

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Sudeley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Tenby, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

Terrington, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wolverton, L.

7.48 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 17, leave out (" 1971 ") and insert (" 1975 ").
The noble Lord said: I shall be quite brief. I appreciate that a number of noble Lords are waiting to take part in the resumed Committee stage on the Immigration Bill. If we do not know how to look after our own children, I do not know how we can expect other people to look after theirs. This Amendment gives the Committee an opportunity to point out to the Government that they have no mandate for this Bill and that it would be a very good thing to postpone its operation until after the next General Election, when there would be a good chance that it would never come into being. That would be welcomed by a great many people. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: In company with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I realise that your Lordships would like to pass on to the next Committee stage. I think that we have a mandate for this Bill, a mandate to this extent: that the Conservative Party for years in Opposition drew attention to the need to concentrate on priorities in education. This was the general philosophy of the White Paper New Policies for Public Spending. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that I am extremely surprised that there should be anything between us on this point. Possibly when Parties change from Government to Opposition, the language of priorities ceases to be the language of his Party; I do not know. There is this difference between us, and I must say that I am surprised.
LORD HOY: I am bound to say that the noble Lord's reasoning is somewhat faulty when he says that he was returned on a Party political policy which said to the electors of this country:"If you return us, we will take the milk from the school children ". I do not believe that to be true.
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord has it slightly wrong. We do not produce our policy to the country just at General Elections; we do it over a period of years. What I said to the Committee was that for many years in Opposition the Conservative Party made their position perfectly clear on this matter.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I do not think any of us on this side, and few on that side, need instructing about an order of priorities. As I understand it, Nye Bevan put it—and I accepted it when he said it—that"socialism is the religion of priorities ". It is a strange priority that takes one-third of a pint of milk from children who may be placed at risk. I shall not press this Amendment to a Division, but certainly I will give my noble friends on this side an opportunity at least to express with their voices how they feel.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provision of milk in Scotland]:
7.52 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 25, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" eleven ").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief on this Amendment, too. Clause 2 deals with the position in Scotland, and the same general arguments apply as to England and Wales. I do not wish to repeat them all, but I want to make it clear that, even though the Government would not accept the Amendment to increase the age to eleven under Clause 1(1), I would give them another chance to treat the children of Scotland a little more liberally than they seem disposed to treat children of England and Wales. Certainly their action would not be resented in Scotland. If my crystal glass is giving me the right message, I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has to say why children in Scotland should not be treated more liberally than the children of England, particularly having regard to the fact that local authorities there can spend the product of a 2p rate, compared with only 1p in England and Wales.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I have not joined in the debates on this Bill before because I have always felt that one must declare a vested interest, and here I have to declare a vested interest from several points of view. First of all, I am a farmer, and naturally one of the things a farmer tries to do is to sell milk. But I am also a county councillor of a county in Scotland, and a ratepayer, and I should

895
like to say a few words from these angles. I can assure the Committee that when the last Government reduced to eleven the age of children receiving milk I spoke to over 100 people about this, and only five of them objected. I think that decision of the last Government was absolutely correct. I want to go a little further on behalf of the many ratepayers in Scotland. Under our rates arrangements a local authority has no capital; it has to borrow money for capital expenditure, sometimes at high rates of interest. I have never known anybody object to money being spent on education, because this is something that some parents of children cannot afford. But people do feel that it is up to the parents to look after their own children and nay for their food and clothing. I have met many people in Scotland who are quite happy to pay for education, but are not willing to pay for food, and feel that it should be charged at a reasonably economic rate.
The important thing in the case of milk is that it is only eligible from a rate support grant from the Government; it is not 100 per cent. free. Nothing is free in this world, anyway. I feel that it is the parent's responsibility. But we are providing for children up to the age of seven. These small children probably would not be able to handle money anyway, and there would be complications. I do not want to lengthen this debate, but I feel that the Government's decision is absolutely correct. After that age, if the children want the milk, they can buy it. This, I can honestly say, is very much the opinion of the average ratepayer in Scotland.
More and more money out of the rates is going towards the cost of education, but this nobody minds. Nobody minds paying towards the cost of clothes for children whose parents cannot afford them. A district council may often arrange for shoes, clothes, and the lot, for children of big families. But I feel that the extra family allowance that the present Government have made is doing a lot of good. If only we could educate people to take a little more interest in their children and not so much in bingo, I think we should be going a long way in the right direction.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: As a Scottish ratepayer, and the father
896
of a child who until quite recently was at a Scottish village school, and who is at present sitting below the Bar in your Lordships' House, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept this Amendment. I am sorry that he did not accept the other Amendment. As a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, I think that this is a very mean and pettifogging Bill. It might go quite a way to make the Government's case a little better if they accepted this Amendment relating to Scotland, which has a higher rate of unemployment than there is in England; and it has a lot of poverty, or near poverty, which some of us who live in Scotland have seen in Glasgow, in the Clydeside area and in Lanarkshire. It is no good saying that you are going to give these children money with which to buy milk, because they will not buy milk, but will buy sweets in the local sweetie shop. As I have said, I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment.
7.59 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Balfour for his words of support for the Government. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and noble Lords opposite that what my noble friend Lord Belstead said applies completely to Scotland. We consider that the benefits we are giving will more than offset any possible extra expenditure of 2p per school day which might be necessary. I refuse to believe that if Scottish parents think their children need milk they will begrudge them this 2p per day. And there is no need, as my noble friend Lord Belhaven seems to think, to give little Willie his two new pennies for him to"blow"on sweets. It is quite possible for the bill to be paid at school by the parents, weekly or monthly as the local authority may decide. That is quite a possible thing and is allowed for in this Bill. There is one small point: if we had passed Amendment No. 1 earlier to-day it would have completely nullified this Bill and put the clock back to where it was in the past. If, however, we were to accept this Amendment—I do not know whether noble Lords are aware of this—it would not have that effect, because the education system in Scotland, at the noble Lord knows, is slightly different from the English system. Scottish pupils in their last year of primary

897
education get free milk. If this Amendment were passed, it would have the effect that they would not get it; so this would be putting the clock further back than the noble Lord intended. However, as the evening is getting on and the arguments are exactly the same, it would be churlish of me to go on speaking.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: No, the argument is not exactly the same. It changes, and not for the better. The noble Lord says that so far as Scotland is concerned we can put it on the bill once a week or once a month. We could put it in this Bill and ensure that children got milk. If there is any defect in the Amendment the Government have draftsmen at their disposal and they could have put down an Amendment to the Amendment or they could have put down an Amendment themselves. I appreciate that throughout most of the Second Reading and during this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has been in attendance and I have personally appreciated the interest he has obviously taken in our arguments. However, I feel that his remarks were completely answered by what his noble friend Lord Belhaven had to say. He called it a pettifogging Bill. It is a pettifogging Bill. As regards what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said, about not having found anyone in Scotland who was criticising this Bill may I say that in a later Amendment there will be an opportunity to look at that point a little more closely. Again I wish to say that I shall not press this matter to a Division, but I should like to have the opinion of my noble friends recorded.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.4 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert (" a qualified medical practitioner or ").
The noble Lord said: The argument here is exactly as for Clause 1. I beg to move this Amendment formally and shall not speak further on the matter.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: We on this side of the Committee have lost all our Amendments, sometimes by a small amount and sometimes by a large amount. I do not think there is much point in pressing this point much further but I should like to reiterate my remarks
898
to the effect that local school medical officers of health should certify that the whole class of children between seven and eleven should receive free milk.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I do not think I ought to go on too long on this point. The arguments are the same. The Scottish authorities would not want to issue milk, which would be a financial obligation on them, on a private doctor's recommendation. The private doctor can draw the attention of school medical officers to cases, where he thinks it necessary that milk should he provided, and any parent could have this done if he thought it was needed. The arguments are exactly the same, and I think that there the case must rest.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should like to make one or two points on this Amendment, and I hope I shall redeem the promise I gave just now to touch upon the situation in Scotland. In Scotland there are 49,000 male workers aged 21 who earn less than £15 gross a week. In Glasgow there is a very, very special position. I think I am right in saying that in Glasgow no fewer than one in ten of the male workers are unemployed; and the prospect is no brighter—indeed, it is a great deal bleaker—as a result of the Government's decision with regard to the Upper Clyde shipyards.
On Second Reading I referred to some correspondence and Press reports about the position in Glasgow, when it was reported that a deputation had waited on the then Under-Secretary for Health and Education at the Scottish Office. I do not know whether the resignation of the right honourable gentleman lets the Government off the hook on this matter. Since, in his letter of resignation, there was no reference to education, and since there has been no allegation that he misbehaved himself, I would appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, can clear up what appears to have been the impression received by the deputation when they waited upon the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education at the Scottish Office. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows the point, because I raised it on Second Reading.
Newspaper reports made it clear that the deputation left the meeting satisfied that the medical officer had discretion to

899
issue certificates on preventive grounds. I think this cannot be too clearly spelt out. The Leader of the deputation, Dr. Docherty, said on leaving the meeting with the Under-Secretary that it would mean that in complete districts in Glasgow most children would be able to receive milk. This being the case—and I am asking for confirmation—it would seem that the Amendment before the Committee would be of great administrative help. It would save the examination of every child, save a lot of book work and avoid undesirable discrimination. Also, we should do well again to remember, as I said earlier, that it is only one-third of a pint of milk a day.
LORD BELSTEAD: I will just reply to the noble Lord on his last point. I replied to it on Second Reading, and I was looking for a reference, but I am afraid that I cannot find it immediately. The burden of my reply to him now on behalf of my noble friend and myself is that the school medical officer's decision will be final. There will be no question of Government or anybody else stepping in and rescinding decisions of school medical officers.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I say that I raised the point because there is still misunderstanding in Glasgow? I was in fact asked to raise it this afternoon, because what the noble Lord said on Second Reading was not sufficient.
LORD BELSTEAD: I hope that what I have said now is sufficient.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 13, leave out (" 1971 ") and insert (" 1975 ").
The noble Lord said: I think it is quite appropriate that in regard to this Amendment I should say that we think the operation of this Bill so far as Scotland is concerned, as well as England and Wales, should be held back until 1975, when we shall have had another General Election which one hopes will sweep this Government from office and we shall have a more humane and understanding Government in office.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I do not think that noble Lords opposite
900
will expect the Government to accept this Amendment. As my noble friend Lord Belstead has made amply clear, our intention is that by restructuring the general outlook many people at the bottom will be better off. This is small in itself, but it will bear fruits in the long run. With regard to the point about August 1, 1971, we had anticipated that the Bill would have been law by now, and I am advised that the effect in Scotland will be just the same as in England. It will be operated in Scotland, of course, whether there are children to drink milk or not. Therefore it cannot do any harm having it as it is. It is not retrospective legislation in any way. With those words I will leave that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

IMMIGRATION BILL
8.12 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Appeals against conditions]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 15, line 44, leave out (" or for other reasons of a political nature ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. The Committee is perhaps in some difficulty—I do not refer to the hour—due to the fact that there are a number of cases in which the Government have said."There is a point here; we should like an opportunity to think about it before Report stage." In those cases we have naturally not pressed the matter to a Division, but we do not

901
yet know what the Government are going to do. There is also the difficulty that there are later Amendments on the Marshalled List which may or may not be carried.
The situation in which I move this Amendment is as follows: The position with regard to some right of appeal other than the ordinary right of appeal on a deportation order stands at the moment in this way: If the Government's Amendment No. 91 is carried, there will be a right of appeal in family cases. There will not be a right of appeal in the non-conducive cases. The non-conducive cases will be (a) of national security, (b) international relations, (c) for reasons of a political nature, and (d) non-conducive grounds which are not so limited. Of those non-conducive grounds which are not so limited the only examples given concern people of whom the Government have private information, which they cannot disclose, that they are drug traffickers or members of the Mafia. I concede that there ought to be some special procedure of appeal in cases of national security; in cases of international relations where the Government may not be able to explain the delicate position about the international relations, and in the general class which includes the Mafia, drug takers, et cetera. Whether that special class should be subject to appeal to a non-statutory body, and be purely administrative, like the"Three Wise Men ", or whether there should be a special form of statutory tribunal, we have later to consider. The only one I am questioning is:
" or for other reasons of a political nature ".
I do that on two grounds: first, this phrase is so wide that it is difficult to understand what it means. The words"reasons of a political nature"must obviously include"Party political nature ".
Anybody who has experience of this situation knows that Home Secretaries and M.I.5 have always treated rather differently those on the extreme Left from those on the extreme Right, and the right honourable gentleman, the Home Secretary, was pressed in the other place to explain the type of person this phrase covered. On being pressed from both sides of the House the only case he was
902
able to give was that of someone who it was thought had come here to stir up bad relations between different sections of our community. I must accept from him that' that is the case which is here covered; it was the only one that he mentioned. So let me take an extreme case, one about which we should have every sympathy with the Home Secretary: if somebody from West Pakistan comes here to make inflammatory speeches at public meetings against Pakistanis in East Pakistan, or vice versa. This does not seem to be proper for this special procedure but ought to be dealt with by the ordinary procedure for these reasons: First, as the Bill stands, this is not a man who has no right to come in here, and we are saying,"You cannot come in ". This subsection deals only with people who are already here, who have leave to stay here for a certain period and are suddenly told,"You must go at once ". The special procedure at the moment contemplated is that now applicable to civil servants.
But the Home Secretary says,"This ' Three Wise Men ' procedure with no right of legal representation is suitable in this type of case ". A civil servant is quite able to speak for himself—he is an educated man. If he wants to be represented by somebody else he can, although he has no right of legal representation. He could be represented by a representative of his Civil Service organisation, or by his Permanent Secretary. This may be a man who has come from Pakistan to see his son, whom he has not seen for some time. He has come for only three weeks, and speaks very little English indeed. He is suddenly told, when he has been here only three days, that he must leave at once. I cannot see why the ordinary right with representation should not be available to him as an ordinary appeal, when all he wants to say is,"I wrote and told my son before I came that I was not going to take any part in any public affairs between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, and that I should refuse to do this. You can ask my son, who has the letter. In the three days that I have been here, apart from my son and his family, I have not contacted anybody from West Pakistan or East Pakistan. The Government's fear that I am going to stir up trouble is completely unfounded."
The words referred to in my Amendment should be omitted from this subsection because of their wide meaning, which could include almost anything. Also, if we are to accept what the Home Secretary says, that all it is designed for is to cover this type of case, then in relation to this type of case there are not the characteristics which naturally obtain if one is dealing with national security, or international relations, as well as this wider class, which, as I understand it, is outside these words, of the person who is believed to be a drug trafficker or one of the Mafia and could perfectly well be dealt with, if at all, by the ordinary procedure.
I hope it will not be said that the Wilson Committee or the late Government agreed about this. I have read carefully what the Wilson Committee said. They were dealing with another point and the Appeals Order of 1970 to which the Government of which I was a member was a party, simply said this:
" Special procedure in cases involving national security et cetera or forgery of documents. Where a person appeals against any decision or action to an adjudicator, or by virtue of Article 4(1)(b) of this Order to the tribunal, and it appears to the Secretary of State that the decision or action was taken only or mainly in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or otherwise on the grounds of a political nature, the Secretary of State may direct that that appeal (a) if it would otherwise be heard by an adjudicator should be referred to and heard by the tribunal as constituted for the purpose of hearing appeals."
That is an entirely separate point, whether the appeal should go first to an adjudicator or straight to the appeal tribunal—but that is quite another matter. I would have thought that these words ought to be moved out of this subsection, for the reasons I have given. I beg to move.
8.22 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Under the Bill as it was amended in another place on Report stage there is a right of appeal to the immigration appeal authorities where a decision to curtail the stay or a refusal to extend or remove the limit on a limited leave to enter is based on a personal decision by the Secretary of State that the person's departure would be conducive to the public good. This would not apply where the grounds were
904
national security or reasons of a political nature. Similarly, there is a right of appeal under Clause 15 of the Bill where a deportation order is made on conducive grounds except where the decision, again taken personally by the Secretary of State, was in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country, or for other reasons of a political nature.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said, the purpose of this Amendment is to delete the last phrase so that there would be normal rights of appeal to the immigration appeal authorities where the decision to curtail the stay in this country or to deport was based on reasons of a political nature. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to the Report of the Committee on Immigration Appeals under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson (Cmnd. 3387) and said he had studied it carefully, as indeed I have. Perhaps I may quote the whole of paragraph 143 so that it cannot be said that this is a selective quotation. The heading is"Special Cases ", and paragraph 143 reads as follows:
" Cases arise from time to time in which the Home Secretary feels justified in excluding a person from this country, or requiring him to leave, on grounds that are essentially of a political nature—for example, that his presence here is or would be harmful to international relations, or offensive to public opinion. We doubt whether the system of appeals which we are proposing would provide apt machinery for dealing with such cases. We would not therefore think it wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the proposed appeal system, to remove such cases from the scope of that system and leave them entirely to the Home Secretary's discretion subject to his responsibility to Parliament."
That is the whole of paragraph 143.
The present position is that Article 8 of the Aliens (Appeal) Order 1970 makes special provision for an advisory procedure instead of the normal right of appeal. I quote the words from the Order:
" Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the decision or action was taken wholly or mainly in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or otherwise on grounds of a political nature."
That is the position under the Aliens (Appeal) Order at the moment; so the Bill not only follows closely the precedent set by the previous Administration, but

905
is modelled on the actual words used in the Order in effect to-day. The Aliens (Appeal) Order was laid before Parliament in draft when the Immigration Appeals Bill was introduced in 1969, and the fact that the special advisory procedure referred to in the Order would extend to political cases was drawn to the attention of your Lordships at the Committee stage of this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, defended the reference to political cases, The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was asked what kind of cases the Government had in mind when including this reference to political cases, and he replied:
" The kind of case the Wilson Committee had in mind as an example of one decided on political grounds, not connected with international relations, was that of a person whose presence here would be an offence to public opinion. They gave, for example, a prominent neo-Nazi. Another example might be the case of an alien seeking to work covertly in this country, in the interest of a foreign Power, in a way that was contrary to our national interest, although it could not be said to threaten national security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/69; col. 1066–7.]
Since the immigration appeal system was introduced the only case which has fallen within the words which the Amendment seeks to exclude was that of Mr. Dutschke. This case also involved grounds of national security, so the Government are not able to add to the experience which my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave from this Box in 1969. But it does seem to us right that cases which might fall within these words should remain matters for the Home Secretary's decision, exercised in the light of the advice he will receive from the Three Advisers and subject to his answerability to Parliament.
This is one of those Amendments—we have others later to-day—that at face value attract a good deal of sympathy. One tends to feel that this type of Amendment deserves support, but when one comes to look into it I do not think there is a great deal between us. The previous Administration set up an advisory procedure. It operated within the immigration appeal system but it was a special advisory procedure. In all other cases the Home Secretary is bound by the findings of the Tribunal or of the adjudicator, and appeals are made against
906
his own decision; but this is not so in the case of security or political appeals.
Noble Lords who have followed this matter will find that in about 1967 or 1968 when he was Home Secretary Mr. Roy Jenkins discussed in another place, on a debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill the recommendation by the Wilson Committee. He said that he saw the force of what they said but that he wanted to have the benefit of some advice. He wanted to retain this as a discretionary decision but he wanted some advice. He thought the way to do it was to have the Tribunal argumented by special members who would sit for the purpose and be able to give the Home Secretary advice in security or political cases. There has been only one instance of this special procedure and we know—Mr. Callaghan said this frankly—that it did not work out as he had hoped. He was the Minister responsible when the 1969 Act was introduced. The special procedure did not work out in the manner he hoped it would. It took on the character of a trial, and a trial in which aspects of the evidence were brought out which could not be rebutted by the person who was appealing before the Tribunal.
That being so, it seems to the Government that the right thing to do in these circumstances is to return the matter to the Home Secretary's discretion and in this instance for him to have the benefit of the special advisory procedure—the"Three Wise Men "—which he described at some length in another place, and not to continue with what was (and we must accept this) an unsuccessful experiment. These are the reasons why we think that what is in the Bill is right. Although we have sympathy with what the noble Lord has said, and have given it a good deal of thought, we are inclined to think that in this respect the Bill is better than the Amendment.
8.31 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: I very much hope that the Minister, in accordance with the way he has met other Amendments, will consider this matter before Report stage. The words in the Bill are extraordinarily wide. I am disturbed again and again in reading clauses in this Bill by the power that is given to the Secretary of State. I do not want

907
this country to become in any way a totalitarian nation. But these powers, which include the suggestion that one should not have the right to appeal for reasons of a political nature, go very far indeed to making this country in this respect totalitarian.
The Minister has referred to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which limited the right to particular circumstances. I acknowledge that I am not much concerned about what previous Governments have done in this respect. I am concerned about the whole principle of the issue. The broad terms of"reasons of a political nature"seem to me to be going much further than any measure of this kind should go if we believe in libertarian policies at all. I hope the Minister will look at this matter again to see whether he can before Report stage obtain a form of words which will not leave this very broad exemption free from the right of appeal.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: It is sometimes helpful in a case of this kind to reduce it to a reductio ad absurdum. I would ask whether the case I am going to quote is a case to which this would apply. If it is assumed that we had a strong anti-Common Market Government, and a strong Opposition which was pro-Market, and the Opposition arranged for Willy Brandt to come to this country and address a large meeting at the Albert Hall, it seems to me that under the terms of this provision the Home Secretary would have the right, on political terms, to forbid him to come. I do not object to this. What I object to is the part of the clause which says there should be no appeal against it. Does not this rather absurd instance show the dangers?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think it does show the dangers. With respect, what it does is show the inappropriateness of judicial proceedings. What happened in the Dutschke case? The immigration appeal system had been set up; there were adjudicators hearing thousands of cases every year, and the Tribunal acting as an appellate division, with fixed rules of guidance. They had the Statutes concerning immigration law and the immigration Rules. We have some relevant Amendments to deal with later on
908
when we come to discuss the role of the adjudicators and the Tribunal. They can ensure that the rules are adhered to, that the law is properly kept and observed by immigration officers and others; and in certain cases they can review the way in which discretion is used. Therefore they can build up a body of case law and know where they stand.
However, when there are—and there always will be—political decisions, there is no way in which a Tribunal, which has a quasi-judicial character, can assess the merits of those decisions. We heard a powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Garner, on this exact point on Thursday night. He and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, sat as members of the Tribunal on the Dutschke case. He said he accepted the Government's case, that these are political decisions for which the Home Secretary must be answerable to Parliament. That may be a part of the equation to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, did not give adequate weight in the example he gave.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given a great deal of thought to this matter, and he did not in fact go as far as that. He did not say,"These are to be entirely discretionary decisions. I will take the decision without consulting anyone." He said that where a man is already in this country, in the security and political cases the Home Secretary should take advice. He was really saying exactly what Mr. Jenkins said previously, that he would not ask the Tribunal, who were there in the role of judges, to review what is essentially a political decision.
LORD FOOT: The Minister will know from what I said the other evening that I am in general sympathy and agreement with him upon the general issue that a decision taken upon political grounds is a decision which ought to be taken by the Home Secretary, which he ought to be prepared to defend in Parliament, and it is inappropriate to refer that decision by way of appeal to any kind of appellate tribunal. I am with the noble Lord on that, but a narrower point arises on this business which I should like to take up with him. As I understand it, the argument is that the person who is in this country and appeals against conditions is in a rather better position under Clause

909
14(3) than is the person who is excluded from the United Kingdom and appeals under Clause 13(5).
In other words, if under Clause 13(5) the Secretary of State certifies that a person's exclusion is conducive to the public good, that is the end of the matter; but when we come to the person who is in this country and who appeals against a variation of conditions under Clause 14(3), then he is said to be, as I understand it, in a more favourable position because the words"conducive to the public good"are qualified by the words which follow after them; that is to say, first,"as being in the interests of national security "; secondly,"or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country "; and thirdly,"or for other reasons of a political nature ".
What I question is whether those words, if they mean anything at all, which I am inclined to doubt, are anything less than"conducive to the public good ". It all depends upon the meaning of the word"political ". I looked up that word in the dictionary and found that it means:
" Of or relating to the State; or of or relating to government; or of or relating to public affairs."
If one reads the word in that sense, then one finds that the provision reads like this:
" for other reasons relating to public affairs ".
I should have thought that would include the case of the Mafia, and the example which somebody gave of the American student who comes over here to disrupt a university, or something of that kind. It seems to me that those words, read in that sense, are as wide as the words"conducive to the public good ". So my difficulty is whether Clause 14(3) in fact varies from Clause 13(5) in any material way and whether we have not been given here a sop with the suggestion that there is a difference when in fact, as I think, there is no distinction.
LORD GARDINER: Perhaps if the Minister is going to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, he will also cover a point which I made and to which I do not think he has yet replied; namely whether it is right for the Government to say that the"Three Wise Men"procedure has worked all right for civil servants without any right of representation and therefore it is good enough for
910
these people. But civil servants are educated Englishmen, who are quite capable of speaking for themselves and who, in any case, can get their Civil Service representative or Permanent Secretary to speak for them. We are now dealing, however, with foreigners who are already here and who are suddenly told they must go; they may have been here for only two or three weeks and able to speak only a little English. Therefore can a procedure be right if it affords them no legal representation at all? I have an Amendment down about legal representation, but that would not apply to this case.
LORD BALERNO: I was brought up to believe that when one visited a foreign country one should respect the hospitality of that country, and therefore, whatever views one had personally or in conversation with one's friends about the politics of that country, one should not take any overt action in the matter. I think this is a fundamental point of good relations between countries. In regard to the question now before us, it seems to me that it is a case where somebody has abused the hospitality of the country and has taken overt action. In such a case I am inclined to think that the Home Secretary would be entitled to take what one might call direct action, knowing that any action that he took would always be subject to review in Parliament. Therefore I am inclined to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in this matter.
May I add a postscript about the cliché which is going the rounds so much at the moment about the"Wise Men "? It is being so much over-used at the present moment that one does not know who are the"Wise Men"concerned, or how many there may be. In another place today there was confusion as to whether it was three"Wise Men"or four, and I returned to this House this evening and discovered another debate about"Three Wise Men ". It is all most confusing, and I think we should do something to make our definitions and our language more clear.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend for his support, and I think that what he has said really answers the noble Lord, Lord Foot-The proposition from which the Home Secretary started in considering this matter is that there is a prerogative power

911
to exclude anyone from this country, and that this is exercised by the Home Secretary in his discretion. Where a person is already in this country—the man covered in Clause 14 of the Bill—the Home Secretary explained in Standing Committee at some length, in a passage to which I referred last week, that he thought we owed the individual rather more. The man will have been admitted into this country; and if the Home Secretary then takes the initiative against him, as it were, by terminating his stay, by refusing to extend it or by curtailing it in some other way, he should be in a better position than somebody who is not here at all—who is outside the country—although the grounds may be similar. It is for that reason that there is an appeal—if one may use that word. In the case of the man who is already here, there is an advisory procedure—this is set out in Clause 14(3)—whereas there is not in the case of a man who would be covered in Clause 15(3).
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me a question to which I think there is no complete reply. My right honourable friend spoke at some length on June 15 on the Report stage about the structure and the working of the advisory panel—the"Three Wise Men ", to use what is undoubtedly a well-worn cliché, though if we start changing our terms now I am afraid that we shall only confuse ourselves. My right honourable friend made the point then that there would be no right to legal representation but that the person concerned could be represented by a friend, or by somebody acting on his behalf.
I agree that there is probably a considerable difference between a civil servant who is familiar with the procedure, who has worked within the Civil Service, and somebody from outside this country who may not have been here for long; who may have language difficulties or whose knowledge of British customs may not be great. None the less, I think we can expect the Home Secretary, who has put it on record that he intends to take advice from a body of people, to make sure that the individual knows what his rights are and is helped in regard to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, knows, this happens within the working of the appeals system at the moment. The Immigration
912
Service do not regard themselves as being there to prevent immigrants from exercising their rights; on the contrary, it is their responsibility to tell people what their rights are and to encourage them to exercise them as much as possible. We must have confidence in the common sense of those who would be concerned in this particular procedure. I suppose that a comment one can also make to the noble and learned Lord is that if the"Three Wise Men"themselves felt that they had not been given a fair deal they would make a point of saying so.
LORD GARDINER: I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration he has been good enough to give to this matter. There are, of course, two points of view. I am grateful to know that the Home Secretary is prepared to consider whether this sort of case should be dealt with by the"Three Wise Men"or whether provision might not properly be made for legal representation. I considered what the noble Lord has said, and on that I ask leave to—
LORD WINDLESHAM: Before the noble and learned Lord finishes what he was saying I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. In what I said I did not intend to give the impression that the Home Secretary was considering a formal right of legal representation, but he clearly stated that there would be an opportunity for an appellant to be represented by a friend.
LORD GARDINER: I understood the Minister to say that if the"Three Wise Men"themselves said,"We cannot understand a word this man says; he has brought along a Pakistani friend and we cannot understand what he says, either. Really it would save us a great deal of time if we were to allow him to have legal representation ", the Home Secretary might consider that. On that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appeals in respect of deportation orders]:
8.50 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 16, line 17, at end insert ("; but, in calculating the period of eight weeks limited

913
by section 5(3) above for making a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, there shall be disregarded any period during which there is pending an appeal against the decision to make it.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 80. This is the first of the Amendments which are concerned with family deportation and the right of appeal. As I explained on Second Reading, my right honourable friend in the course of debate in another place about the power to include members of a family in a deportation order, did concede that there should be a full right of appeal on merits for members of families, and Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 84, 91, 94, 96 and 97 give effect to the Home Secretary's undertaking. The principal Amendments in this series are Nos. 84 and 91, the others being in various ways consequential.
The purpose of Amendment No. 80 is as follows: Under Clause 5(3) a deportation order may be made against a member of a family at any time within eight weeks of the departure of the principal deportee. This interval allows time for the rest of the family to be given the option of supervised departure; that is, accompanying the principal deportee but without thmselves being deported, although knowing that if they fail to leave the Home Secretary will feel obliged to make a deportation order against them. The effect of the Amendment is that, if for any reason the proceedings on appeal brought by a member of a family are still pending when the principal deportee leaves the country, the eight weeks' time limit runs only from the conclusion of the appeal proceedings; thus even if the dependant's appeal takes a long time to settle it will still be possible for the Home Secretary to offer supervised departure.
I should add that we do not expect appeal proceedings to be prolonged often in this way, but it is a contingency that should be covered. Normally we would expect appeals brought by the principal deportee or any member of his family to be disposed of before any of them leave the country. There may, however, be cases in which the head of the family does not wish to appeal against his own deportation, and asks to leave as soon as possible so that if the family follow
914
he can then prepare for their coming. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amenment No. 81:
Page 16, line 18, leave out from beginning to (" a ") in line 22.
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment in the same series. The words proposed to be deleted—that is the first half of Clause 15(3)—reappear in subsection (8)(a) in the list of four new subsections to this clause which it is proposed should be added after Clause 15(6) at the top of page 17. This is set out in Amendment No. 91. It seems to the Government to be clearer presentation to cover all cases in which an appeal lies direct to the Tribunal, including the family deportation appeals, and this is what the new subsection (8) will contain. This rearrangement is consequential on the first Amendment in the series to which I have just spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: It will be seen that three Liberal noble Lords have added their names to my own on this Amendment, but lest it should be thought that the Government are seeking to curry favour with the Liberal Party, I should point out that we are joining forces similarly with the Labour Opposition on Amendment No. 94. The reason is the same in both cases, that the Government have, as I have explained, accepted the case for appeal in cases of family deportation, and therefore neither the first half of Clause 15(4) nor Clause 17(6) are required. The second half of Clause 15(4) is reinserted in the new subsection (7) in Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I rise really because if, as one would assume, with the grand alliance between the Government Front Bench and the Liberals, this Amendment is carried, the noble Lord shoots my fox in Amendment No. 85, which will then fall. It seems to me that before one does this one should perhaps have a little more discussion on exactly what the noble Lord was referring to

915
when he said that this new procedure on appeal in family deportation cases would be on merit, because all that these Amendments are concerned with is the procedure by which such appeals could be carried out.
The noble Lord will remember that at an earlier stage of our discussions I made the point that I still could not see on what grounds such an appeal could lie. It is all very well having a procedure, but unless there are grounds the best procedure in the world is not much use. The noble Lord was good enough to say that the grounds would be vouchsafed hereafter, under some rules the draft of which we have not yet seen. This is what I would draw to your Lordships' attention, because it does seem to me a far from satisfactory state of affairs. If, as one would hope, by the time we reach some later stage on Report the Government have had second thoughts about the whole question of family deportation, this would be by far the most satisfactory way of dealing with this situation.
I would not expect the noble Lord to say anything at this point, because it would not perhaps be appropriate, but I am making this point at this stage because it seems to me the most appropriate stage at which to make it. One has no objection to improved procedures for appeal, but they can be pretty hollow unless one has grounds, and I am still entirely unclear what those grounds are likely to be.
LORD FOOT: Might I make it perfectly plain, because, after all, we have got our reputation to think of, that the fact that this Amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord and ourselves is purely fortuitous; and in fact, as I do not think he has made quite clear to the Committee, he is proposing to put the second part back again later on, which is the very part we want to get rid of. Therefore, I would like to be able to reserve what comment we have to make upon that second part until we come to Amendment No. 91, where it is reproduced. Perhaps I might explain while I am on my feet that as a result of the passing of this Amendment, if it is passed, certain of the following Amendments standing in the name of my noble friends and myself will fall to the ground, and I shall not of course be moving them.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that if this Amendment was accepted the Government would have"shot her fox"in the shape of Amendment No. 85. With all respect, I think that her fox had already been shot by the Government concession on the right of appeal on family deportation, because the grounds that the noble Baroness has advanced are in fact narrower than the grounds of appeal which will exist in future; she has only suggested two grounds whereas there will now be a right of appeal over a much wider range. The noble Baroness asked me on what principles the Tribunal will proceed when considering cases of family deportation. It was exactly for these reasons that I gave her quite a full account of our thinking when we debated this particular provision last week.
As I said, these are not final and concrete proposals, but they represent the way our minds are working. If a wife had been separated from her husband for some time that would probably be regarded as a ground for not treating her as a member of his family. If a child had left home and taken employment and established himself elsewhere, that again would be a ground for not regarding him as a member of the family. In the case of younger children of school age, I think it would be right to take account of the disruptive effect of removal on their education, and the likely effectiveness of plans for their continued care and support in this country if one or both parents were deported. The Immigration Rules on Control after Entry will be amended so that they contain a full statement, on which the Tribunal will base itself when considering the appeals.
As regards the general question of family deportation I do not think I can leave the noble Baroness in any doubt on this. We had a full debate on the subject, and the Committee then divided on the question. In a number of matters I have undertaken that we are going into them very carefully, but in these circumstances I do not think it would be right to mislead her by holding out very many hopes on this question.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT had given Notice of an Amendment, No. 90:
Page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: When we were discussing Amendment No. 73, which was an Amendment to Clause 13(3), I argued that the persons there dealt with ought not to be required to leave the country before they could initiate an appeal against their refusal of entry. This Amendment raises the same issue, but the clause we are now discussing deals with people who are seeking to appeal against the refusal to revoke a deportation order. I have to recognise, and I do recognise, that the case for requiring these people to get out of the country before they can initiate their appeal is stronger than in the other cases, such as the case of patrials and so on, which I raised before. In those circumstances, I shall not move my Amendment No. 90.
9.6 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
(" (7) On an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, or an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so made, the appellant shall not be allowed, for the purpose of showing that he does not or did not belong to another person's family, to dispute any statement made with a view to obtaining leave for the appellant to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (including any statement made to obtain an entry clearance).
(8) An appeal under this section shall be to the Appeal Tribunal in the first instance, instead of to an adjudicator, if—

(a) it is an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order and the ground of the decision was that the deportation of the appellant is conducive to the public good; or

(b) it is an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, or an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so made; or

(c) there is pending a related appeal to which paragraph (b) above applies.

(9) Where an appeal to an adjudicator is pending under this section, and before the adjudicator has begun to hear it a related appeal is brought, the appeal to the adjudicator shall be dealt with instead by the Appeal Tribunal and be treated as an appeal duly made to the Tribunal in the first instance.
(10) In relation to an appeal under this section in respect of a deportation order against any person (whether an appeal against a decision to make or against a refusal to revoke the order), any other appeal under this section is a"related appeal"if it is an appeal in respect of a deportation order against an-
918
other person as belonging to the family of the first-mentioned person.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 91 standing in my name on the Order Paper. In order to give effect to the Government's intention of providing a right of appeal direct to the Tribunal whenever the deportation of members of a family is in question, it is necessary to make some alterations in the the structure of Clause 15. Most of these alterations, as noble Lords will see, are contained in Amendment No. 91, which adds four new subsections to the clause. The new subsection (7) reinstates, in a different place in the clause, a provision previously contained in the second half of subsection (4) which was deleted by Amendment No. 84, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred when we discussed that Amendment.
The effect of this provision is that where a person is appealing against a decision to make a deportation order against him as belonging to the family of another person who is to be deported, the appellant will not be able, for the purpose of showing that he does not belong to that person's family, to dispute any statement made with a view to obtaining the appellant's entry to the United Kingdom. The provision is intended to deal with the case of a person who has been admitted as the dependant of a sponsor in this country, although in fact he has not the relationship with the sponsor, or is not within the age limits laid down. Such a person has, if anything, less claim to stay here when his sponsor is deported than has a genuine dependant. This provision would prevent a person who had gained entry as a dependant, because the facts were misstated, from retracting the full story and disclaiming the status of a dependant when it was to his advantage to do so. It would be anomalous if the genuine dependant were included in the deportation order while the false dependant was not, although the basis of their entry to this country was the same.
The new subsection (8) sets out the cases in which an appeal against deportation is to lie direct to the Tribunal. These will no longer be limited to the cases of deportation on conducive grounds which are now mentioned in subsection (3), and are referred to in the new subsection (8)(a). They will include under

919
subsection (8)(b) appeals against deportation as a member of the family, and appeals against a refusal to revoke a deportation order made on that ground. In addition, the effect of subsection (8)(c), combined with subsection (10), will be that where both the principal deportee and one or more members of his family are appealing against deportation, all the appeals will go to the Tribunal, instead of the principal deportee's appeal being dealt with by an adjudicator. This provision ensures that the Tribunal will deal with the family as a whole, and it is proposed in the rules of procedure to provide that all the appeals should be heard jointly.
Subsection (9) deals with the situation where notice of appeal is given by the principal deportee some time before it is given by members of his family. The subsection has the effect of diverting the principal deportee's appeal straight to the Tribunal if the adjudicator has not already begun to hear it. I beg to move.
9.8 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: On behalf of the Opposition, I must first thank the Government for having introduced this provision so that there will be a right of appeal in the case of a family deportation. I think I referred last week to the statement made a couple of years ago by the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor, when he said that we had established one of the less liberal and one of the most arbitrary systems of immigration law in the world—in the civilised world at any rate. Of course that had nothing whatever to do with the large numbers which have recently come into this country; it had nothing to do with any racial question at all. The first and most obvious way in which our immigration law was one of the less liberal in the world went back between 30 and 40 years: to the absolute bureaucracy of the Home Secretary, and the fact that there was nowhere in our immigration law any right of appeal against anything at all.
I should like to make it clear that, in common, I am sure, with everyone who has been a Minister, I have the highest possible regard for our Civil Service, and in substance the immigration officers are, if I may say so, our old and much valued friends the executive officers, the lowest
920
grade of the Executive class. The immigration officer is paid the same and is largely recruited either from the E.O.s or from those below them who are entitled to promotion to be E.O.s, and I am quite sure that they have all the qualities which the Home Office told the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration they should have. They are expected to have knowledge of at least one foreign language and to have the qualities of courtesy, tact and firmness which are needed to operate an effective control with the minimum of inconvenience to the travelling public. They need to be alert and observant and to have the ability to deal fairly and patiently with all passengers. I am sure that these equivalents of E.O.s have all these qualities; but there is always a danger in conferring an overriding power on civil servants if there is no possible right of appeal against them.
We do not allow any judge to have the power of being final so that nobody can ever question what he does. It is not good—we all know this—from the point of view of human nature to put men in a position in which they have great effect on the lives of other people, if they know that whatever they do nobody can question it. This is why many of us have been fighting for a very long time to do away with the extraordinary bureaucracy in this country of the Home Office and its officials, whose word is the last word, and to provide a right of appeal. This is why, particularly in regard to these family cases, we are very grateful to the Government, because the position we now have is that, apart from the non-conducive cases, there is now a right of appeal against all cases of a deportation order.
But, while thanking the Government, I must say that there is one point about which I am very unhappy, and that is the wording of subsection (7), which reads:
" (7) On an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against a person as belonging to the family of another person, or an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so made, the appellant shall not be allowed, for the purpose of showing that he does not or did not belong to another person's family, to dispute any statement made with a view to obtaining leave for the appellant to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (including any statement made to obtain an entry clearance)."
It is a very familiar principle of law that if A makes to B a representation

921
of an existing fact and B acts on that to his detriment, A ought not afterwards to be allowed to call evidence that what A said was untrue. This is based on a sound moral principle, and to the extent that this is saying that a man who comes here and makes a representation—for example,"This woman I have brought with me is my wife "—ought not in subsequent deportation proceedings to be allowed to say,"What I then said was untrue ", that is absolutely right. It is the familiar principle of estoppel.
But there are two further things in this subsection which seem to me, if I may say so, subject to what the Government have to say, to be completely wrong. First of all, it is related not to whether what the man said was true at the time but to whether it is true now. I cannot see that that is possibly right. The man comes in and he says,"This woman with me is my wife ". Two or three years pass, and there is a divorce. They may both remarry. It cannot be right, surely, that he should be precluded from saying,"What I said was perfectly true at the time, but it is not true now because there has been a divorce and she is no longer my wife." I do not see how that can possibly be right, but as I read the wording of the subsection that is the effect it seems to produce.
The second point is this. The appellant may be the man himself or it may be one of his family who is being threatened with deportation with him. This wording appears to bind third parties as well as the man himself, and I should have thought that could not be right. If a child is brought in by a man who says,"This is my son ", and he is accepted on that footing, and if, it may be years later, the question of this man's deportation arises, it is quite right that he should not be allowed to deny that what he said was true. But, surely, it ought not to bind the boy. The boy may in reality be the son of some other Pakistani who is in the country. How can it possibly be right that the boy, who is not responsible for what the man said, should be bound by what the man himself said? Therefore, while I quite accept the ordinary principle of estoppel, it seems to me that, so far as this clause does not appear to allow for any change of circumstance, and so far as it appears to be binding on
922
other members of the family, it cannot be right.
LORD FOOT: May I support the noble and learned Lord in practically everything he has said about this Amendment? Per-Imps I may start by saying that we on these Benches very much appreciate that the Government have given this wider right of appeal to the families of deported persons. We regard this as a very big step forward, and one of the major improvements which, with the assistance of the Government, have been made to the Bill. The second thing I should like to say, in following up what the noble and learned Lord has said, is something about the work of the adjudicators and the Appeal Tribunal, and of the immigration officers. It is perfectly correct, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that the task thrown upon the shoulders of immigration officers at the various ports of entry is one of the most difficult tasks to perform, and from what I have seen of the immigration officers at work at the various ports of entry I am satisfied that we are extraordinarily well served by these people. There is no sort of doubt about that.
But, as the noble and learned Lord said, however admirable such a body of men may be, and however well they may attempt to do their work, it does not relieve us of trying to set up an appeal procedure. With the experience that we have had of the working of the appeal system over the last couple of years, I believe that, generally speaking, throughout the immigration service the institution of the appeal system has been very much welcomed, because it has relieved them of what were very often baseless accusations of prejudice. They are in a position now to say,"We will make our decision, and if you are dissatisfied then you can take it to an independent tribunal ". I believe that this system has been welcomed by them, as it has been by the people who take advantage of it.
But may I turn to subsection (7), and to the point which the noble and learned Lord made about it? I hope we have made it clear from these Benches—if not we shall have failed in our job—that, while we regard the whole of this Bill as a very bad Bill, if I had to pick out any single item in it which I regard as nastier than any of the other provisions, I think I would settle upon this one. The

923
noble and learned Lord read out the subsection as it stands, and he made the point that this is an unprecedented extension of the law of estoppel. It is an unprecedented extension of the law of estoppel in one particular regard, and that is that a person is estopped under this particular clause from disputing a statement which was made by somebody else and in which he had no part, in which he did not connive. But he is bound by that, and bound by it at once and for ever more.
The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the sort of shocking possibilities that could occur under this clause. He took the case—and I should like to take the same ease, it I may, and deal with it in a slightly different fashion—of the infant child who comes into this country as the dependant of a Commonwealth citizen who is already settled here. The child comes in under some false assertion of parenthood. The child comes in and many years later the sponsor of the child, the person who perhaps purported to be the father of the child, is convicted of a criminal offence and ordered to be deported. At the discretion of the Secretary of State the order may be made against the child, who is perhaps now 15 or 16 years of age. When that matter comes before the appeals tribunal it is not open to the child to say that this is not right, that this man is not his father, that this man is perhaps his uncle. He is not able to dispute it, he is not allowed to say anything to the contrary.
The wording is"any statement ". It does not say, only a statement made by the boy's sponsor, the uncle or someone like that; it says"any statement ". He is not entiled to dispute any statement that may have been made at any time with a view to obtaining leave for him, the child, to enter the country. It may be a statement made by somebody who is still abroad, perhaps in Pakistan; it may be a statement made by some distant relative or by some official, a district officer. He is not entitled to dispute any of these statements. Not only is this a wickedly unjust decision, or could work out with wicked injustice; but I suggest, as Oscar Wilde would have suggested, that it is even worse than that because it is silly.
924
The whole object of Clause 3(5)(c) of the Bill, which is the subsection that provides that the family of a deported person can be deported too, is to ensure that when a person is deported it shall be within the power of the Secretary of State also to send out that person's family. That is the object of it, that you should be able to get rid of the family of that person at the same time as you get rid of him. The result in the example that I have given is not to send away a dependant or a member of that person's family, but to send away somebody else, somebody who is a member of some other family. You get this ludicrous result: a person is deported, and you insist that there shall go away at the same time a person who is not a member of his family and not in any way dependent upon him. That is the outcome of this niece of legislation. This is not a case of the sins of the father being visited upon the children; it is a case of the sins of the father being visited upon somebody else's children.
How can this matter be cured? As the Minister will know, we have put down an Amendment to the earlier clause (now taken out)—a very simple Amendment. If the Minister cannot given us any encouragement on this occasion then I think we shall seek to move a similar Amendment at the next stage. What we sought to do was to insert in this new subsection (in the sixth line) the simple word"he"so that it now reads that it will not be possible
" to dispute any statement he "—
that is, the appellant, the member of the family—
" made with a view to obtaining leave for the appellant to enter or remain "
and so on. While we have not put down that Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment, I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement and that the Government will be able to look at this in some favourable way.
LORD JANNER: May I add a word on this matter, in the hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the suggestion that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and perhaps even go further in regard to the point made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner? I do not think for a

925
moment that it was intended—I do not see how it possibly could have been intended—that the statement of a person other than the person concerned himself in the question of deportation could be used in evidence against an individual when that person may have known nothing at all about it. He may be in no way connected with that person himself, other than the fact that somebody at some stage said something which cannot be denied, or should not be denied, by him, and this would make that statement one which must not be denied by anyone else. I think it would be an absurd position and I am sure your Lordships will think the same. I appeal to the Minister to consider this position and even to go further. As your Lordships know, we have very strong views in regard to deportation, and certainly the deportation of families. At least we should not place the onus on an individual who himself may have had nothing to do with statements that were made.
9.27 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for the general comments in support of the appeal system which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot have made. Perhaps there is a point of detail, though of importance, that I should make before going on to the central point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, implied that there was no right of appeal in conducive cases from the decision of the immigration officer. That is not so, for under paragraph 61B of Cmnd. 4606 an appeal will lie where the immigration officer refuses somebody entrance to the country and leave to land on non-conducive grounds. It is only in the cases which we have been discussing earlier this evening and last week, where the Secretary of State himself takes the decision that there is no right of appeal; it has to be the decision of the Secretary of State. Since that narrowing down is not contained in the Statute, the action of the immigration officer is open to appeal, for it is an action of some importance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner also asked about change of circumstances. If a woman now divorced came in as a wife, or claimed to be a wife and has since been divorced, she would no longer be regarded as a member
926
of the family, as defined in Clause 5(4), because she would no longer be the man's wife. So the governing words would be the first words in the new subsection (7)"against a person as belonging to the family ".
LORD GARDINER: Is not this the issue: that if the man said when he came in,"This woman A is my wife ", B would be precluded from disputing that that statement was true? It is simply that, as the provision is worded, no allowance is made for a change of circumstances since the date when the statement was made.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think we ought to leave on the Record that the definition of"family"is going to be important. The definition is a long way back in the Bill and there is a part of the Bill, carefully set out, which determines the family group. We have to remember that the children, when they have gone beyond the age of 18 will cease to be members of the family group. So this provision will then no longer bite. What the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry, but may I interrupt on a point of detail which I did not grasp? Suppose the man, when he entered this country, said,"This woman is my wife"when in fact she was not. Presumably on appeal she could surely say,"I never was his wife. Although he said I was, I am not his wife and never have been." What happens to her then?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is the exact point to which I was about to address myself, and I hope that I shall be able to help the Committee. It is the position of the wife and the children (the noble Lord, Lord Foot gave me warning of this) to which he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner have addressed our minds. I must say that when I first heard of the noble Lord's concern I shared it entirely; on the face of it, this seems a strange provision. But I have looked into it and, as is often the way in drafting legislation, there is a good reason for it, though one which is not apparent and which needs to be explained. This matter was debated in another place at considerable length. A similar Amendment was put

927
down by the Liberal Party and pressed to a Division. The Opposition put down an Amendment, which, after an explanation given by one of my colleagues, was withdrawn.
The problem here is of a man or woman who enters as a dependant under false pretences, whether the false pretence is within his own knowledge or not. We are concerned first and foremost with the status of the dependant in immigration law. As regards the controls, the special power to deport members of families has been taken because wives and children who have entered the country, not in virtue of any right of their own but as dependants, cannot have any claim to stay if the person, as whose dependant they entered, has himself been deported. This is provided in Clause 3(5)(c), and persons regarded as belonging to a family are defined in Clause 5(4).
If a genuine dependant has no claim to stay, we must ask ourselves how the false dependant can have a claim to do so. If a false dependant can have no claim to stay, what would be the purpose of allowing him to establish that he is a false dependant and gained entry only because the immigration authorities were deceived? To allow a false dependant to try to establish that he is a false dependant would not only be contrary to legal principles, in allowing a person to profit from his own wrong or one committed on his behalf, but it would also hold out an incentive for all genuine dependants to claim that they are false as a means of escaping deportation. How could the Home Office prove that they are genuine, if they allege that they obtained entry by means of deception?
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, argued that in some cases the appellant might be a young child, who would not have this within his knowledge because he was too young to know of the deception. Why, it is said, should he then be punished? It is not a question of punishment, but simply of seeing that a person admitted as a false dependant as the result of a false claim is not put in a better position than the person who is admitted as a genuine dependant. A genuine dependant has no claim to be here at all if the head of the family is deported. If, however,
928
there are companionate circumstances, based on long residence or the education of children or circumstances of this sort, which we have already debated, the Secretary of State will want to take account of them.
The arguments that I have mentioned seem to us to override the objections to the extension of the estoppel, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, to cover the statements not made by the person himself or his authorised agent. Often statements will have been made by someone with a financial interest in the deception. Whatever the common law ambit of estoppel, it remains true that Parliament can make a special provision in a particular sphere, as is proposed here, where it considers this to be justified. The difficulty here—this is what it all boils down to—is that if the genuine dependant, the actual dependant, of somebody is to be included in the family group, and has to go, surely it would not be consistent for somebody who has been admitted as a dependant although he is not really one to be able to put himself in a better position by denying that he is a dependant. These are the sound reasons which lie underneath what, on the face of it, seems a provision that it is difficult to understand.
9.36 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: Obviously the Committee will wish to accept this Amendment, because the principle is naturally one with which we agree. We did not like to put down an Amendment to an Amendment which we had not yet had explained to us. I think that this particular point will have to be reconsidered on the Report stage, because, if I may say so with great respect, I have never heard so bad a degree of bureaucratic immorality as that to which we have just listened. Nobody but civil servants could have conceived of this. The position is perfectly simple. If a man comes into this country telling a lie, he ought not to be allowed to achieve any advantage from it. Of course, if he says,"This woman is my wife ", and he is let in on the faith of that statement, he ought not to be allowed afterwards, when me deportation order is in question, to say,"I told a lie, and I can now prove that in fact she is not." We are dealing with two cases. First, there is the case of the related family of people, of the woman

929
who says:"My husband told you quite truthfully when we came in that I was his wife. Now there has been a divorce. We have both remarried. You have now served me with a deportation order as being my first husband's wife. Well, I am not. I am not his dependant either. I am now the wife and dependant of another man." It is absolutely monstrous, and quite immoral, that she should be sent away to some other country when she has not done anything wrong from start to finish; nor for that matter has her husband, who has told the truth, and all that has happened is that there has been a change of circumstances.
Equally, in the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, of the child who comes here and when the man who brings him in tells a lie about him. The man ought not to be allowed to obtain any advantage from having told that lie. But the child is completely innocent. Supposing the fact is that a different Pakistani in this country is his father. Why should he be deported to a far country with this man who told a lie and not be allowed to stay with his father? For the time being, we must accept this Amendment; but we must return to the point on the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD FOOT: I should like to add just a word or two. I hope that the Minister will consider everything the noble and learned Lord has said, because the argument that the Minister was putting just now seems to me to be this:"We took a monstrous power in this Bill when we decided to take the power to deport members of a person's family when that person himself was deported, and having taken that wicked power we are not now going to put the non-dependant in a better position than the real dependant. We are going to carry on the injustice, and throw it over first upon the real dependant, and secondly upon the person who is not a dependant." I hope that the Minister will consider this matter again.
The trouble with the Government on this particular clause, as it seems to me, is that they have set their feet upon the slippery slope of punishing by deportation a person who is a member of the family of a person who is being deported, and having got themselves into that hopeless situation, they are now forced into
930
these absurd solutions that the noble Lord has presented to us. It is quite incredible to suggest that when you deport a person because he is not fit to be in this country, and you decide at the same time that you must get rid of the people who are members of his family, you should then go on arbitrarily to send out of the country with him somebody that he has nothing to do with, to whom he is not related, who is not dependent upon him, because that person made a false statement about him when he originally came in. I hope the Government will look at this again.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Before this Amendment is agreed to, might I say just a word regarding the last speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. As regards the second class of case which he mentioned—the child who was passed in as a real child but who turns out not to be—having listened to the debate, I am inclined to think that it is the Opposition who are arguing for an act of injustice and that justice lies on the Government's side. But I quite agree that one cannot fully take in all the pros and cons in a short debate like this. It would be well worth while for all of us to read the debate afterwards and reconsider it.
As regards the former case, I hope that on further consideration the noble and learned Lord will accept what my noble friend has said, because I cannot see how deportation proceedings can be taken against a woman as the wife of a deportee if she establishes that she is not the wife. Subsection (4) of Clause 5 seems to state quite clearly that it is only a man's wife and not any alleged wives of his who can be deported: nor can any divorced wives of his be deported. If a woman, seeking to defend herself against deportation, proves that she has been divorced from a man who is to be deported, she can surely establish that proof without coming within the rebuttal of this new subsection (7). She is not concerned to prove that she was not his wife at some previous date when he entered the country, but she is surely concerned to show that because of divorce she is not his wife at the present time; and if she proves that she cannot be liable for deportation because subsection (4) of Clause 5 shows quite clearly that

931
it is only the man's wife who can be deported.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: As a last word on this, this is not the crucial case. The crucial case concerns a man who brings somebody in and says that she is his wife when she is not, and she goes off and lives happily for twenty years with somebody else. He then commits a crime and is deported, and she goes with him.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: It may be that in addition to all these problems there is a problem of semantics arising. Some of our immigrants come from Bengal, and the Bengalis have a curious set of relations which they call"cousin brothers ". I have never been able to unravel just what that relationship is, but it appears to me that there is a possibility of an immigrant arriving, making a statement which from his sparse knowledge of the English language he might consider to be true, but at some time later when he knows English better he may realise that he has made a false declaration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Provision for inquiry in cases where no appeal lies against deportation order
".—(1) Where the Secretary of State has decided to make a deportation order and no appeal lies by virtue of the provisions of this Act against such decision, any person aggrieved by such decision may within a period of twenty-eight days (or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow) of service upon him of notice of the said decision make representations to the Secretary of State against the making of a deportation order.
(2) In any case where such representations are made then unless the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that there are no prima facie grounds for holding an inquiry he shall appoint one or more persons to hold an inquiry and to report to him anti pending such report he shall not make the deportation order.
(3) The Secretary of State shall direct whether the inquiry or any part thereof is to be held in private or in the absence of any persons specified by name or description and the person appointed shall comply with such directions.
(4) The person appointed shall report to the Secretary of State and such report shall not
932
be published in whole or in part without the authority of the Secretary of State.
(5) The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall apply to a person to whom notice has been given under this section as they apply to a person to whom notice has been given under section 18 of this Act.
(6) A notice given under this section shall inform the person to whom it is given of his rights under this section.".
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this important Amendment is to consider what should happen when there is a question of deportation by the Home Secretary on non-conducive grounds. At the moment the Bill contains no right of appeal at all. The Home Secretary has intimated that he proposes in these cases to have an administrative non-statutory appeal to the"Three Wise Men"in accordance with the procedure adopted in the case of civil servants and security cases. He has said that this has been satisfactory in those cases and therefore this ought to be regarded as satisfactory. One of the difficulties about leaving something to be purely administrative is that nobody has any legal rights at all, and you never quite know where you are. I understand that in relation to all statutory appeals the Government will probably be prepared to accept the proposition that there ought to be a right of legal representation. In anything that is administrative and completely non-statutory there can be no right to that because there is no right to anything at all. At the moment the Government do not propose that in those cases there should be any right of legal representation.
The object of this Amendment is to cover those cases of deportation orders for which no appeal is at present provided and to provide a statutory right of appeal which, I hope, safeguards all the provisions which the Home Secretary could want. If I may read it, the new clause says:
" (1) Where the Secretary of State has decided to make a deportation order and no appeal lies by virtue of the provisions of this Act against such decision, any person aggrieved by such decision may within a perod of twenty-eight days (or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow) of service upon him of notice of the said decision make representations to the Secretary of State against the making of a deportation order.
(2) In any case where such representations are made then unless the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that there are no

933
prima facie grounds for holding an inquiry he shall appoint one or more persons to hold an inquiry and to report to him and pending such report he shall not make the deportation order."
In the first place this enables the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry of one or more persons—the"Three Wise Men "—but provides that he need not do so if he thinks that there is no prima facie case. The new clause continues:
" (3) The Secretary of State shall direct whether the inquiry or any part thereof is to be held in private or in the absence of any persons specified by name or description and the person appointed shall comply with such directions."
Here the Secretary of State is given full power to decide whether the"Three Wise Men"are to sit in private; whether other people, and if so who, are to be present or absent. The clause continues:
" (4) The person appointed shall report to the Secretary of State and such report shall not be published in whole or in part without the authority of the Secretary of State.
(5) The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall apply to a person to whom notice has been given under this section as they apply to a person to whom notice has been given under section 18 of this Act.
(6) A notice given under this section shall inform the person to whom it is given of his rights under this section."
It appears to us that this is a statutory form of the"Three Wise Men"procedure giving the Home Secretary all the powers and rights that he could possibly want. All it provides for is that there shall be an appeal unless the Secretary of State thinks there is no prima facie ground; there will be an inquiry. It is for the Home Secretary to appoint the"Three Wise Men ", and to decide whether or not it is to be held in private or in the absence of certain persons. Their Report will not be published unless the Secretary of State agrees that it should be published. It seems to safeguard all the matters to which the Home Secretary referred in the other place. What he said about what he was going to do administratively was extremely short and without any real precision. We feel it would be much more satisfactory that this should be statutory, provided that it gives the Government every safeguard for which they could reasonably ask, and it is submitted that this new clause does so. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment, as the noble and learned Lord has explained to the Committee, seeks to make provision for the holding of art inquiry, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are no prima facie grounds for one, whenever the Home Secretary has decided to make a deportation order and no appeal lies under the Bill. A similar Amendment was moved by the noble and learned Lord's Party at Report stage in another place and was discussed with the Government Amendments which provide a right of appeal against a decision to deport someone on not conducive grounds except in security and political cases. As I explained on the last Amendment, these are personal decisions of the Secretary of State and not of officials acting on his behalf. Under Clause 15 as it was amended on Report stage in another place there is a right of appeal against the making of a deportation order save only where the Secretary of State has decided to make the order on the grounds that the person's departure from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature. We debated at some length the meaning of those words on an earlier Amendment this evening. Accordingly this Amendment would cover only the security and the political cases.
I must say that we have had time to study this Amendment—it was tabled in another place, and it has been on the Marshalled List for some weeks now—and it does not seem to us to provide the most satisfactory way of doing this. Although it would make statutory provision for an inquiry in such cases, it would be entirely for the Secretary of State himself to decide whether any inquiry should be held and whether the inquiry or any part of it was to be held in private or in the absence of the person proposed to be deported and his representatives. The report by the person appointed to hold the inquiry would not be published without the authority of the Secretary of State. This would really put the Secretary of State into the position of appointing an inquiry into his own actions. The deportation orders are made by personal decision of the Home Secretary, as I have said, and to put a Minister

935
in this sort of position would leave him with some extremely difficult decisions to make.
As I have explained on earlier Amendments, the Home Secretary proposes to set up a non-statutory advisory procedure for political and security cases modelled on the lines of the procedure for security cases in the Civil Service. The noble Lord suggested that what the Home Secretary said was rather short and generalised. I think that comment could perhaps have been applied to the brief description he gave in Standing Committee, but I do not think it could be applied to what he said on Report. The reason why I have not quoted it is that it does occupy the best part of two columns of Hansard, cols. 376/7 of 15th June. What the Home Secretary had in mind he explained in some detail on that occasion. He emphasised the Government's view that decisions of this sort did not involve justiciable issues, and should be subject to Parliament rather than to any statutory advisory procedure.
What the Home Secretary said on that point—I can quote the last passage on the statutory procedure as against the non-statutory one recommended in another place—was:
" I recommend it "—
the"Three Wise Men"procedure—
" to the House as the best possible system we can adopt in what is inevitably a difficult case. We have to reconcile the needs of national security with the proper rights of the individual to protect himself. It is a better procedure than the statutory device of the Amendment put forward by the Opposition. I am not sure that it is wise to put this in statutory form. In effect, it means importing once again into this matter a justiciable issue, whereas the whole basis of my philosophy is that these are decisions of a political and executive character which should be subject to Parliament and not subject to courts, arbitrators, and so on."[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 15/6/71, col. 377]
The proposal contained in the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would present no advantage in practice over the arrangements the Government intend to introduce. While purporting to oblige the Secretary of State to subject himself to advisory procedure, it would nullify this by saying that he alone is to decide whether there are grounds for inquiry in a political case. I accept that there is room for differences of opinion,
936
but we believe that the procedure that the Home Secretary has outlined is the most appropriate way of dealing with what are, and are always going to be, political decisions; that he should answer for these to Parliament, and that he should take advice before doing so.
LORD GARDINER: This is very unsatisfactory. It is always the administrator's argument,"Leave everything to me in matters of administration ". I hope it is not only lawyers who think it is better if things have a legal framework. In this Amendment we have done everything for the Home Secretary which he would want to do administratively, but, instead of being purely administration, it would have a legal framework. The only right we have provided for the proposed deportee is the right to make representations. We have provided that if the Home Secretary thinks there is no prima facie case he need not have an inquiry; if he thinks there is a prima facie case, then we have provided for the"Three Wise Men ". We have provided that it is a matter for them, and not the deportee, whether they sit in public or in private, who is to be admitted, who is not to be admitted. They are to report to the Home Secretary. The report will not be published without his consent; he retains the last word.
This is exactly the"Three Wise Men"procedure spelled out, except that it is given a legal framework instead of being left as a matter of pure administration, which one Home Secretary can change the day after another Home Secretary has decided it. I hope that the Minister may be prepared to say that, before Report stage, the Government will give this matter further consideration; otherwise, I shall respectfully ask the Committee to consider the matter.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry but I cannot help the noble and learned Lord any further. As he will know from studying the proceedings in another place, this is a matter which was much discussed and received a great deal of attention. I would question the observation that this provision is convenient for administrative reasons. He will see that the Home Secretary said on a number of occasions that this was a solution of his own, and he was speaking as a Parliamentarian. He feels strongly that the correct way is to

937
give the Minister discretion in cases of national security or these very special political cases: to make a senior Minister responsible, and for Parliament to hold him accountable; and that to try to put outside this some quasi-legal framework which is to review his own discretion will lead to problems of the kind we have seen in the case we debated earlier this evening. So I am afraid it is not possible
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals against removal on objection to destination]:
10.6 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: This is the Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred, and it arises out of the Government's acceptance of the right of appeal for family deportations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 18, line 42, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Gardiner.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has correctly said, this is a further consequential Amendment relating to the appeals on family
938
for me to add to what I have said in reply to the noble and learned Lord; and if he wishes the Committee to take a decision, so be it.
9.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 92) shall by agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, H.

Shackleton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

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

White, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Balerno, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Barnby, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Redmayne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

St. Just, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

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

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ilford, L.

Terrington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lothian, M.

Vivian, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

deportations, and I am glad to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Notice of matters in respect of which there are rights of appeal]:
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 19, line 23, leave out (" conclusive ") and insert (" prima facie evidence ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, and I really want only to raise a query as to the exact effect of subsection (2) of Clause 18. The first subsection of Clause 18 provides that in certain circumstances:
" The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for written notice to be given to a person of any such decision or action

939
taken in respect of him as is appealable under this Part of this Act…"

and it goes on to provide what must be set out in the notice. When you come to subsection (2) you find that it says:
" For the purpose of any proceedings under this Part of this Act a statement included in a notice in pursuance of regulations under this section shall be conclusive of the person by whom and of the ground on which any decision or action was taken."
I raise no question about the notice being conclusive of the person by whom the decision was taken, but I do ask what is the exact effect of the words that the notice"shall be conclusive"as to the ground on which it was taken. May I take a simple example? Take a case where a deportation order is made on the ground that a person has been convicted of a criminal offence and has been recommended by the court for deportation. Supposing that that person says,"It was not I who was convicted ", and then a notice is issued under the regulations, saying that the notice is issued by the Secretary of State, and that it is issued on the ground that that person has been convicted of a criminal offence and has been recommended for deportation, does this subsection, saying that the notice shall be conclusive as to the ground on which the decision or the action was taken, preclude the adjudicator, or the Appeal Tribunal, from looking behind the motives as to whether indeed it was this particular person who was so convicted and so recommended for deportation? I am merely asking for information. There is nothing sinister in the question I am asking. I should like the Minister to tell me whether that is a possible interpretation. If it is a possible interpretation, would not the difficulty be overcome by doing what our Amendment proposes, and that is to substitute for the word"conclusive"the words " prima facie " evidence.
10.12 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Under Clauses 13(5) and 15(5) the fact that the Secretary of State personally has decided that the exclusion of a person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good is a bar to any appeal. Under Clauses 14(3) and 15(3), the fact that the Secretary of State has personally decided that the departure or deportation of a person is conducive to the public
940
good, as being in the interests of national security, or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country, or for any other reasons of a political nature, is likewise a bar to a statutory appeal against the decision. It is therefore necessary that any decision as to exclusion, departure or deportation should be readily identifiable, both by the person affected and by the appellate authorities, as one which either does or does not give rise to a right of appeal.
The purpose of Clause 18(2) (to which the noble Lord's Amendment refers), is accordingly to enable a decision which is not subject to appeal to be identified by the terms of the notice of decision, and to make this identification conclusive. Whether the decision has been taken by the Home Secretary personally, and, if so, for what reasons, are matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the Home Secretary. We are not sure that the Amendment would achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, wants it to achieve. If it were accepted, it would be open to a would-be appellant to challenge the statement in the notice of decision, and to maintain either that the decision had not been taken by the Secretary of State or that the reasons given were not the true ones. He would have to bring forward some evidence of his own to support his challenge, and it is difficult to see what this could be. But it seems undesirable that a would-be appellant should have an opportunity to try to circumvent the restrictions on rights of appeal by disputing the reasons for the decision, or the fact that it was taken by the Secretary of State personally. This is most evident in relation to security cases, where any inquiry by the appellate authorities into the process by which the decision was reached would be inappropriate, and contrary to Parliament's intention in excluding such cases from the appeals system.
As regards the whole range of the conducive cases, so far as they are excluded from the appeal system, the intention is, as I have explained, that the Home Secretary should be answerable for his decisions to Parliament. It would be inconsistent to allow either his statement of personal responsibility, or his reasons, to be called into question before the appellate authorities. Subject to further advice, I do not think that the specific

941
case the noble Lord referred to would arise here. What we are concerned with are those grounds, the non-conducive grounds, which do not carry with them a right of appeal. I speak subject to correction on this. I should like to check the point and come back to the noble Lord on it. But I think that we are discussing here whether or not the Home Secretary had grounds of a political or a security nature, and it is these that would not be open to challenge if the word"conclusive"were left out of the clause.
LORD FOOT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I am not, I am afraid, entirely satisfied, because as I read Clause 18 it appears to deal with appeals generally. It does not appear to be limited to appeals in conducive cases. It appears to relate to any case where a person has a right of appeal, and subsection (1) states:
942
" The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for written notice to be given to a person of any such decision or action taken in respect of him as is appealable under this Part of this Act."

Therefore, I cannot see why subsection (2), which includes the word"conclusive ", should limit this to the two questions of whether the Secretary of State personally made the decision, and whether the decision was on conducive grounds. I shall not detain the Committee any longer, but I shall study carefully what the noble Lord has said and perhaps he, in return, will look at what I have said.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, I will gladly do that. I think that would be the best way of resolving this debate.
LORD FOOT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY had given Notice of Amendment No. 95A:
Page 19, line 26, leave out (' any ") and insert (" a draft of the ").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 95A and 95B refer to the issue which has previously been raised, of whether Parliament should have negative annulment or positive approval. Since we shall be referring to this on the Report stage, I ask the leave of the Committee not to move this Amendment.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Determination of appeals by adjudicators]:
10.18 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 95C:
Page 19, line 40, after (" differently ") insert—
(" or
(iii) in all the circumstances of the case he feels it jug and equitable so to do.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to a subsection which will permit the adjudicator to allow an appeal if he considers two items, to which I want to add a third. I am proposing this addition because there may be many cases where, technically, there will be a fault but where there are circumstances which make the illegality morally excusable and perhaps even justifiable. These arise from difficulties about language, circumstances and other considerations. This may particularly be the case where a person has been resident in this country for a considerable period, even though illegally; and all this Amendment seeks to do is to give the adjudicator power to consider the other circumstances which are in my Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think that the noble Lord's Amendment would go a good deal wider than it would appear, from the speech he has just made, that he intends. Clause 19(1)(a) sets out the circumstances in which an adjudicator is to allow an appeal; that is, where he considers that the decision in question was contrary to law or to the Immigration Rules, or, if the decision involved an exercise of discretion within the Rules, that the discretion should have been exercised differently. The Amendment
944
which the noble Lord has just moved would permit an adjudicator to allow an appeal, even if these conditions were not satisfied, if in all the circumstances of the case he felt it just and equitable to do so.
Clause 19(1)(a) is in the same terms as Section 8(1)(a) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, which in its turn was based on the recommendations made by the Wilson Committee in paragraphs 139 to 142 of their Report. The Wilson Committee summed up the effect of their recommendations as to the type of decision that the adjudicators could reach under the review in the following words:
" The scheme we have outlined will leave the Home Secretary with the power (and the corresponding responsibility) to formulate within the limits allowed him by statute the rules governing immigration control and so to determine the policy to be applied in its administration. At the same time the question whether a decision under appeal does or does not conform to the rules in which this policy is expressed will give rise to a justiciable issue appropriate for decision under an appellate process by an impartial tribunal: some degree of discretion will be entrusted to the appellate authorities, but no greater than is normally thought compatible with the exercise of judicial functions."
This Amendment would run counter to the delicate balance of the Wilson Committee's scheme by, in effect, allowing an adjudicator complete discretion to override the application of the Immigration Rules to particular cases whenever he thought it appropriate to do so. This is not a power which should properly be given to an administrative tribunal. It must remain with the Home Secretary, who exercises it, subject to his responsibility to Parliament, for the general effectiveness of immigration control. If the appellate authorities had power to dispense in particular cases from the provisions of any general rule that the Home Secretary might lay down, he could no longer be said to be answerable to Parliament for the effective operation of the control.
It is now, and will continue to be, open to the appellate authorities to bring to the notice of my right honourable friend any instance in which they consider that the operation of the Immigration Rules is producing unjust or oppressive results, and it goes without saying that any such representations would be most carefully considered. But to go

945
further, as the Amendment would, and to allow the appellate authorities to waive the application of a rule in accordance with their views as to the merits of a case would detract from their position of neutrality and impartiality. Moreover, it would be likely to lead to some inconsistency in deciding appeals, and so to uncertainty about what treatment an immigrant could expect to receive under the published immigration Rules.
LORD FOOT: While I can well understand that the Government cannot go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would like them to go in inserting this new subparagraph, I should like to ask the Minister about the words of paragraph (a)(ii); namely,
" where the decision or action involved the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State or an officer, that the discretion should have been exercised differently;…"
The difficulty I want to draw attention to is that when one comes to look at the Draft Immigration Rules, and particularly at the Rules as they apply to visitors and to students, they are, I think, very largely a reproduction of the existing rules. But when one looks at these Rules one finds recurring over and over again the words"if he (the applicant) satisfies the immigration officer"or"if the immigration officer is satisfied"or"if the immigration officer is not satisfied"and so on.
May I take the first of them? This deals with visitors.
" A person seeking entry as a visitor is to be admitted if he satisfies the immigration officer that he is genuinely seeking entry for the period of his visit as stated by him "
and so on. The question is (and I think it is a question which has not been resolved before the Appeal Tribunal): if an immigration officer examining a visitor is not satisfied that that visitor is genuinely seeking entry, is he, the immigration officer, then exercising a discretion which can be reviewed by the adjudicator, or is the position that when there is an appeal lodged against the refusal he goes to the adjudicator—and says,"I was not satisfied "?
Take the case of a student. The Rule says:
" A passenger seeking admission as a student is to be refused leave to enter if the immigration officer has reason to believe that his
946
true purpose is to seek employment and if the officer is not satisfied that the passenger is able and intends to follow a full-time course of study…"
He must refuse. When he refuses a student in these circumstances, because he is not satisfied with what the student has said to him and the representations the student has made, is he then exercising a discretion which can be reviewed by the adjudicator or not? That is the point which I think remains unresolved as the law stands at the moment. That, I imagine, is the sort of uncertainty with which Lord Brockway is concerned.
Possibly the Minister will say that if I cast my eyes lower down, as far as Clause 19(2), I shall see:
" For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above the adjudicator may review any determination of a question of fact on which the decision or action was based;…"
I do not know whether the Minister is likely to say that that is the answer. I doubt whether it is; because when the adjudicator examining a student tries to make up his mind whether he is satisfied that this student is genuinely coming into this country to pursue a course of study, he is not resolving a question of fact; he is trying to use his own judgment as to whether this person is genuine or not. If that is all he is doing I do not see what question of fact there is for review by the adjudicator in circumstances of that kind.
LORD GARDINER: I should like to put one short question. We are all in some difficulty in trying to relate the provisions of the Bill to the Rules because we are told that the Rules are in process of being completely re-written. When shall we have the written version of the Rules? Can I take it that we shall have that at least one week before we resume in October?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think it would be right to assume that the Rules are being re-written. There are some additions to make to the Rules. We have been discussing one particular example relating to family deportation, and I mentioned the sort of considerations that were in our minds. There are also some deletions which have been specifically explained. One relates to the dependants of those already established here. Under

947
it, the head of the family will no longer have to show that he has the financial ability to support them. The Home Secretary said that he intends to change this requirement in the Immigration Rules. But I think it would be misleading the Committee to suggest that there is to be any large-scale rewriting of the rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked about the meaning of the word"satisfied"in the Immigration Rules. He referred in particular to Rules 15 to 21 of Cmnd. 4606, relating to visitors and students."Satisfaction"on the part of the immigration officer involves the determination of a question of fact within the meaning of Clause 19(2) and so is open to review by the appellate authorities. I know from personal experience that in both the instances the noble Lord gave—that of the visitor seeking entry when the immigration officer believes that his true intention is to settle in this country and that of the student who there may be some reason to think is coming not to follow a course but to stay here for work and settlement—the decisions by the immigration officer would give rise to appeal. Where I think we diverge in debating Lord Brockway's Amendment is on the exercise of discretion within the rules and on the way in which the immigration officer interprets the rules. That exercise of discretion is covered in this clause, but what the Amendment would do would be to say that the appellant authorities would be able, if they thought it"equitable"(that is the word in the Amendment) to set aside the rule itself. But we think this would be going too far.
LORD BROCKWAY: I greatly appreciate the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I hope very much that the Rules may be amended before we reach Report stage. In view of the possibility of raising this matter again, I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.32 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 20, line 1, leave out from (" based ") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to subsection (2) in which the right of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion is restricted. I submit that this restriction may have far-reaching effects. It will prevent an applicant—this may occur in many cases—declaring that the Home Secretary should have exercised his discretion differently. The Home Secretary in such cases may argue that the appellant has merely asked him to depart from the rules and the Home Secretary's refusal will then not be regarded as an exercise of discretion. I hope very much that the Minister will look at this point, because it seems to be a restriction which may go beyond what is intended in this subsection. I hope that he may be able to reconsider the words used. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The words which this Amendment would delete from Clause 19(2) provide that a refusal by the Secretary of State to depart from the Immigration Rules is not to be treated for the purpose of Clause 19(1)(b) as an exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State so as to enable an adjudicator to decide in appeal proceedings that the discretion should have been exercised differently. The effect of deleting the words which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway has proposed would be to enable the adjudicator to do this, because this provision in the Bill is based on an express recommendation by the Wilson Committee, which spent a long time considering the most appropriate form of an immigration appeal system and how it should operate once it was set up. In paragraph 140, the Committee had this to say:
" We therefore recommend that where the general rules leave scope for the exercise of discretion by the Home Office the same discretion should be open to the appellate authorities. Where however a rule leaves no room for discretion, the appellate authorities should have no power to waive its application in a particular case."
A similar provision is contained at present in Section 8(2) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969 and in Article 7(2) of the Aliens (Appeals) Order 1970. The effect is that, where the Immigration Rules leave the Secretary of State or one of his officers with a discretion in a particular type of case, the exercise of that

949
discretion is open to review by the appellate authorities on the merits. Whenever the Rules for Control on Entry provide for admission in certain cases on compassionate grounds or on grounds of hardship, an exercise of discretion is involved. These are cases in which discretion is exercised within the Rules.
There are also cases from time to time in which a person seeks to be admitted or to be allowed to stay in this country although he has no entitlement to do so under any provision of the immigration Rules. In a case of this sort, his request can be granted only if the Secretary of State is prepared to depart from the Rules exceptionally. It is right that the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible to Parliament for the enforcement of immigration control, should have power to make exceptions to the Rules when he considers this to be justified by the exceptional circumstances of a particular case. But to give a similar dispensing power to the appellate authorities would be inconsistent with their status as judicial bodies, and would result in the power being exercisable without accountability to Parliament. We believe that it is better to adhere, as the Bill does, to the carefully considered recommendations of the Wilson Committee on this matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: I appreciate deeply the reply which the Minister has given. I would like to consider it, and meanwhile beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 20, line 16, leave out (" (3)").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment 80 and others in the series concerning appeals in cases of family deportation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [References of cases for further consideration]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 20, line 44, leave out (" (3) ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also consequential on Amendment No. 80 and the others in the series. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Procedure]:
10.40 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 21, line 18, leave out from (" thereunder ") to (" and ") in line 20.
The noble Lord said: My noble friends and I put down this Amendment with the object of questioning the provision that the burden of proof and admissibility of evidence can be altered by rule by the Secretary of State, because Clause 22 provides that the Secretary of State may make rules, among other things,
" for prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed on or in connection with appeals thereunder, including the mode and burden of proof and admissibility of evidence on such an appeal."
We were concerned whether it was really proper that the laws of this land about burden of proof, evidence, and so on, should be the bagatelle of the Secretary of State when he is writing rules. But since this Amendment was put down I have studied the Immigration Appeal Procedure Rules 1970, and I can see that there is some argument for giving the Secretary of State this power, because in some respects, and particularly in relation to the law of evidence, he has provided that under the rules certain kinds of evidence that would not ordinarily be admissible in a court of law shall be admissible in an appeal of this kind. I think that is desirable.
When it comes to the burden of proof, I can see that there are grounds for that. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, might care to say that he thinks this is in order. If so, then I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I think this goes somewhat far, because you can change the effect of any legislation if you change the whole of the burden of proof. On the other hand, as this is a Bill put

951
forward by a Ministry, they have already taken the precaution of putting the burden of proof on everybody but themselves, so I do not think it would have much effect.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think perhaps this is the occasion for me to spare the Committee a long speech. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has satisfied himself. For some reason or other, it has had a lukewarm welcome from the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite. I think we might leave it at that.
LORD FOOT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GARDENER LORD GARDENER moved Amendment No. 99B:
Page 22, line 34, leave out (" subject to annulment in pursuance of ") and insert (" approved by ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I suggested on Second Reading of the Bill that one of the deficiencies of the Bill was that it did not provide for any right of legal representation on appeal. I then said that I could never see what harm the right to legal representation does. Any county court judge, who is used to many cases with legal representation and many without legal representation, knows how much time is saved when there is legal representation, because those who appear know the points involved and they get on with the case. I said then that I hoped that that fact might meet with some support from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I rather gather that that may be so, and in this anticipated hope, I beg leave to move the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: When the Amendment originally appeared on the Marshalled List it was numbered 100, and I had hoped that we might be able to celebrate our century by accepting it. It has now turned into Amendment No. 98B, because the noble and learned Lord has suggested inserting it a little earlier part of subsection (3) of Clause 22. But that has not put us off. Indeed, we think from the drafting point of view that it is better put in as part of subsection (3); accordingly I would advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 21, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will give serious consideration to this Amendment. It proposes that we should omit subsection (3) of Clause 22. This Amendment raises the question of the very wide powers given to the Secretary of State to make regulations; and I have previously indicated my anxiety about these powers. Subsection (3) is especially objectionable because it maintains one of the most disturbing features of the Immigration Appeals Act in preventing an appellant or his representative from attending the hearing of a case when evidence is given against him.
This applies in two instances: first, where forgery of a document is alleged and, secondly, where the disclosure of methods of detection would be contrary to the public interest. In the first instance there is only an allegation, and I suggest to the Committee that there should not be a refusal to be present when only an allegation is made. That is contrary to the spirit of our justice. In the second instance, where disclosure of the method of detection may be contrary to public interest, in fact it is very rare indeed for the Home Office to give oral evidence at the hearing. Surely, if there is a forgery that fact can be proved without revealing the method of detection. If a forgery has been made clear in a number of documents concerning entrance to this country, for instance, and these documents are all registered, it seems to me completely unnecessary to suggest that the method of detection must be disclosed. It is so contrary to our whole method of justice that evidence should be heard in the absence of the alleged offender or of his representative, that I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any previous enactment which provides these restrictions, except the Act to which I have referred. It seems to me to be a breach of the rules of natural justice that a person may be penalised by evidence which he or his representative has not heard. Because this seems to me to be a fundamental right, I beg to move this Amendment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: Before the noble Lord replies, may I just say that I am a little puzzled

953
by my noble friend's points. I want to be sure that I have them right. If somebody has a forged permit or passport he cannot have been"sold a pup "—he has no business to buy it at all; therefore he must be a party to the forgery. There cannot be any doubt about this: you get permits and passports from official quarters and not from people round the corner. I do not see why the people who say it is forged should show how they found out. I am tremendously on the side of my noble friend, generally speaking. I am anxious to support him, but I find it difficult. I do not know whether he can amplify the matter?
LORD BROCKWAY: My noble friend has supported me. It is exactly the point that I am making; there is sufficient evidence and documents in the case to make it absolutely unnecessary for the method of detection to be revealed. That is a strong element in the case.
10.51 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Clause 22(3) relates only to forgeries of passports or other travel documents. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked whether there were any precedents in law. I can tell him that in substance, the clause is the same as Section 9(3)(b) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, but I am not aware of any precedents before that date.
LORD BROCKWAY: I mentioned that Act, and asked whether there were any previous precedents, and the Minister has now answered that there are not.
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is so, because the problem did not exist before the 'sixties. This is a problem associated with evasion of immigration control. The noble Lord knows well that since the 1962 Act there have been fairly large-scale attempts to evade the immigration controls. It is hardly surprising that the law in this matter is comparatively recent.
LORD BROCKWAY: That is hardly the point. I am asking whether there is any indication in any Act that someone can be sentenced when evidence is given in court in his absence, or in the absence of a representative. That seems entirely new, except for the instance which the Minister has given.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As I say, I am not aware of any precedents, but there may be some. I should like to explain the reasons why this has been thought to be necessary, why the previous Government in 1969 thought that it was necessary, and why we are convinced that it is now necessary. The reason why it may be in the public interest (and I stress these words, for they are contained in the last lines of subsection (3) of the clause) to conceal from an appellant the method by which it is alleged that a forgery has been detected is that the provision of false documents for immigrants is a highly organised and lucrative trade in some countries, and our success in combating forgeries bears largely in keeping the forgers in ignorance of the defects in their own methods. If these defects had to be specified in evidence given in the absence of the appellants, the information would soon be passed back to the organisers of the trade, thus enabling them to improve their methods of forgery.
It would not be sufficient, as this Amendment proposes, to exclude the Press and public from the hearings since the appellant himself, or his sponsor, who might be his representative, might well be an agent of the racketeers. I thought that the point of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was one on my side rather than on Lord Brockway's side, although he turned it neatly to his own advantage in his reply.
I think that by definition there is bound to be an element of guilty knowledge, in that either the person concerned has obtained his passport on payment or through an agent, or he has obtained it from some official source. In some instances, the deduction of a false document or of a false entry in a genuine document, is based on the absence of certain safeguards in the form of recognition signals that have been deliberately incorporated into the design of the authentic document. If the nature of these safeguards had to be disclosed they would then become valueless. There are also ways of detecting that passports have been altered that could be countered if they were known to the forgers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, very fairly said, this is not the first time that concern has been expressed about

955
this matter. The problems that would arise if methods of detecting forgeries had to be disclosed were first brought to notice in another place on the Second Reading of the Immigration Appeals Bill in January, 1969. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the previous Administration, Mr. Merlyn Rees, promised to consider the matter; but after he had done so the conclusion of the previous Government was that the only solution was to enable evidence of this kind to be given to the adjudicator or to the tribunal in the absence of the appellant or his representative. To be quite fair, the previous Government made it clear that they put this idea forward with reluctance, and in the belief that there was no other way of dealing with this acknowledged and difficult problem; and this is our own attitude. We do not like this particular provision, but there is a real practical difficulty which I have explained to your Lordships. The previous Government overcame it and we think it right to continue with the law as it is.
LORD FOOT: I have the next Amendment down which relates to this point so perhaps I may shorten the proceedings if I speak on this Amendment. I do not think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that there are no precedents for legislation of this kind because there have never been any reasons for it until now. We are dealing with a question of forgery, and the noble Lord says,"Oh, well, it would be very dangerous to allow the party concerned, or his representative, to learn how we discovered the forgery, as that would then be relayed back to the country of origin and the people engaged in this business of forging documents would be able to amend their methods." But this state of affairs has existed for a very long time. I imagine that when anybody is charged at the Old Bailey with forging bank notes it is important not to disclose to the person charged or to his representatives how the forgery was discovered. It may be a matter of considerable national importance that that should not be disclosed. But we do not turn the accused person out of court; we do not refuse him the opportunity of challenging the evidence against him. It is a serious step to do it in the case of immigration when we do not apply it in the case of forgery involving money.
956
Or take a case involving national security, where a person is charged under the Official Secrets Act. Often it may be highly desirable in the public interest that not only should the proceedings be held in camera but that, if possible, the accused person and his representatives should be excluded from the court while certain evidence is being given—for instance, touching closely on national security and the revelation of which might be infinitely damaging to the national cause. But even in those cases we do not say to the accused:"No, you must be removed from the court; you shall have no opportunity of challenging this evidence in cross-examination." We take these risks in these cases. Why? Because we realise that there is here a question of balance between the public interest and the private right; and it is indeed a matter of public interest as well as private right that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. Why the balance should be tipped against the private right in favour of the so-called public interest when dealing with the forgery of passports as opposed to the forgery of bank notes I do not know. The noble Lord will see that in our Amendment we have not gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I sometimes think that I am more concerned with the art of the possible in politics and the noble Lord is more concerned with the art of the imaginable or the conceivable. But, as I say, we do not go anything like so far in our Amendment as he does in his. All we are asking is that where this issue about how a forgery was detected arises, those proceedings should be held in camera.
I well realise that that leaves open the possibility that the party concerned, or his representative, hearing the evidence given, may relay the information back to the country from which he came and it may be made use of there. But I should have thought that that is a risk we ought to be prepared to take in the interests of justice being seen to be done; a risk we do take in the case of ordinary forgery, and ought to be prepared to take in such a case as this. I should not have thought it was beyond the administrative capacity of the people who are issuing entry certificates, passports, and so on in other countries to use devices to thwart methods of forgery which have become well-known and may have become public knowledge.

957
It is a serious issue that we should depart in this particular case from all the ways with which we deal with the administration of the criminal law in the ordinary way. Therefore, while I do not go so far as to support the noble Lord's Amendment, I should like to say these things in support of my own, and it will therefore not be necessary for me to speak to that Amendment in due course.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have little to add to what I said, except this. Nobody has mentioned, perhaps for the first time this evening, the consequences of immigration policy on community relations. On previous days, sometimes on quite a number of Amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have several times raised considerations of community relations. I can assure noble Lords that one of the factors that has the worst possible effect on community relations in this country is the belief that large-scale illegal immigration is taking place and that very little is being done to stop it. Members of the previous Administration will not accept that very little is done to stop it, and nor will we. Special measures are taken in the Part of the Bill to which we are just coming and which concerns criminal proceedings and contains the new offence created by the Bill. But there is no doubt that this belief that illegal immigration takes place, and that we are willing to sit back, has a disastrous effect on race relations. We must do everything we can to ensure that the immigration laws laid down and approved by Parliament are observed. This is a very special provision and a special statutory procedure has been written into the Bill to explain the cases to which it applies.
The only other point which perhaps I should raise is that this is a power of the adjudicator. He is not bound to exclude the appellant or his representative; he will do so only to ensure that these matters can be presented to the adjudicator or Tribunal without any disclosure being directly or indirectly made contrary to the public interest. He will do it only if he believes that the public interest makes it necessary.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am entirely unconvinced, but in view of the circumstances of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Financial support for organisations helping persons with rights of appeal]:
11.5 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 22, line 40, at end insert—
(" (2) The Secretary of State shall, at intervals not less frequently than anually, lay before Parliament a statement of grants made to any or each such organisation as is referred to in subsection (1) above, during the last calendar year preceding such statement.")
The noble Baroness said: This is quite a straight forward Amendment, in the sense that we feel that Parliament, and through Parliament the public, should be informed about the organisations to which the Secretary of State may wish to grant aid. We have no objection at all to this procedure of grants being made to voluntary organisations; we just think the public has a right to know which organisations they are and how much they may have received. We are not really particular as to the method of doing this. If the noble Lord wishes to say that he thinks this is perhaps too onerous or expensive a method, to lay a statement annually before Parliament but that the information can be included in some annual report, if there is an appropriate one, that will be quite satisfactory; but we do think this information should be made available. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: The requirement proposed in the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness would be exceptional, and in the time available it has not been possible to trace a precedent for it: there is certainly none in the Home Office field. The normal means of keeping Parliament informed about the expenditure of public money is through the annual Estimates and, at a later stage, the annual Appropriation Account. In the Estimates for the current financial year (1971–72) provision for grants under Section 15 of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969 is made in sub-head E(3) of the Home Office Vote, and this sub-head states that the money sought will be paid as a grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. The grant paid will in due course be recorded in the Appropriation Account for this financial year; and the

959
same will happen in subsequent years. No change in practice is foreseen when Clause 23 replaces Section 15 of the 1969 Act. Thus the information sought is already available to Parliament, and the Amendment would seem to involve unnecessary duplication of work.
In view of that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: In view of what the noble Lord has said I will not press this Amendment. I am not quite sure that in an area as sensitive as this, where there is so much room for suspicion—much of it not justified, but nevertheless it is there—the method, satisfactory as it may be to Parliamentarians, is likely to be effective where the public are concerned. After all, the public generally do not understand our methods of dealing with departmental votes and sub-heads, and all the rest of it, and I would like to think about this a little more. But in the light of what the noble Lord has said I do not wish to press it at the moment and I beg leave with withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Illegal entry and similar offences]:
11.9 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 101C:
Page 23, line 5, leave out from (" £200 ") to (" in ") in line 6.)
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the reference to imprisonment. I will just put this point quite simply to the Minister. If there is to be the power to impose a fine of £200, and if this is to be followed by deportation, the inclusion of some period of imprisonment is unnecessary. I beg to move.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I should like to support my noble friend, this time I think without qualifications. If the law is to introduce reasons for sending somebody to prison they must be justified, and the reasons for sending somebody to prison who commits this kind of crime seem to me to
960
fade away as we examine them. There is no question of protecting the public; prison does not do that; you cannot illegally enter when you are already here, so the question of protection of the public does not arise. The question of rehabilitation is extremely remote; the idea that you make a man sorry he entered illegally and therefore he will never do it again if you send him away rather fantastic.
You are reduced to the question of straight punishment. We have fairly modern views about straight punishment. There are cases which are so heinous that society requires pain of some kind to be inflicted. There are different views as to whether it is desirable. This is clearly not such a case. I can see no justification whatever, in ethics or any other form of philosophy, for inflicting imprisonment on people who commit this kind of breach of the law, and I think unless the Government can produce some reasons we should support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the Bill stands, offences under Clause 24(1) are punishable by a fine of up to £200 or by imprisonment for up to six months or both. The Amendment would remove the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment. Where an offence under Clause 24(1) has been committed it will often be a sufficient vindication of the law if the offender is sent out of the country, either as a result of a recommendation for deportation by the court or of other powers available under the Bill for removing people who are here illegally.
But this would not always be so. For example, if a person who has been deported for a serious criminal offence returns here in breach of the deportation order, and escapes detection on entry, the court might consider that the offence he has committed in returning merits a sentence of imprisonment. I might just add on that to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who has expressed an interest in this, that this would be particularly so in regard to Irish offenders; there being no control over movement between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, the sanction of imprisonment is a very real deterrent, to an Irish deportee who is tempted to come back again to this country while a deportation order is in force against him.

961
A further objection is that the power of a court to recommend an offender for deportation under Clause 3(6) depends on his offence being one which is punishable with imprisonment. If the Amendment were carried, offences under Clause 24(1) would no longer be punishable with imprisonment and so could not lead to a recommendation for deportation.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: Is the noble Lord really serious in this argument? It does seem to me absolutely fantastic that in order to deport somebody you have got to be able to send him to prison, irrespective of whether there is good reason or not. Really this is an administrative"fiddle"which is not acceptable.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think it is. The reason why deportation depends on offences punishable with imprisonment is to ensure that the court does not recommend people for deportation for very trivial offences. We had a longish debate on this, on the petty offender, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, moved an Amendment on the subject of offences punishable with imprisonment. This is exactly what we are talking about, that people should not be recommended for deportation the first time they fall foul of the law in some trivial way.
The answer to it might be that the Bill could be amended in some way in Clause 3(6); but even if the power to recommend for deportation were retained there might be instances of offences under Clause 24(1) which in the opinion of the court did not warrant a recommendation for deportation but merited a punishment heavier than a fine, or where a fine would for other reasons be inappropriate. The effect of the Amendment would be to constrain the court to recommend deportation for want of a power of imprisonment. Similar offences are already punishable with imprisonment both under Sections 4 and 11 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and Article 26 of the Aliens Order 1953. It seems right, therefore, to leave the courts with their present powers, which they have had for at least nine years in the case of Commonwealth citizens and since 1953 in the case of aliens, to pass sentences for imprisonment where they believe it is necessary to do so.
11.16 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: The noble Lord has mentioned the Irish in this connection. Supposing an Irishman is subjected to the order to be deported and he returns to Ireland. Under our law he has every right to enter this country. If he does enter the country is he contravening the original order for deportation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, he is. He has no right to enter if he is subject to a deportation order.
LORD BROCKWAY: I mean permanently, when ordinarily he has the right to come to this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes. This applies to everyone under a deportation order. It is until such time that the deportation order is revoked, and there is a procedure for that in the Bill.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: As a high proportion of the Irish are already in our prisons I think it is a mistake to add to them in this way. The argument I cannot get round at all is this argument that you have to commit a crime worthy of imprisonment before you can be deported; and then you give a list of sins connected with illegal entry, and then say you have to send these people to prison because, if you did not, you could not deport them. Have I got it wrong?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think you have, because you seem to be saying that you have to send people to prison. This is not the case. It is an offence punishable with imprisonment which, in practice, is very seldom punished with imprisonment at all. At the present time very often in these immigration offences the court may recommend for deportation and nothing more, or it may recommend—and very often does—one day's imprisonment and a recommendation for deportation. It is a residual power which, as I say, the courts have had since 1962 in the case of Commonwealth citizens and earlier in the case of aliens. It is used sparingly and at the discretion of the courts.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I do not want to go on with it, because it could he endless. I have not been satisfied that there is any single

963
reason for sending any person who breaches any of the provisions in Clause 24(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) or (g) to prison. It seems to me that doing so in every case would be negative, a useless filling of our prisons with people we do not want there, and better not done. Having said that, I leave it to my noble friend to carry on.
LORD GARDINER: I would hope that the Government might give this some consideration. It may be that the right consideration ought to be on Clause 6 rather than here. I think there is some force in what my noble friend Lord Donaldson says. When he asks if it is really necessary to send people to prison for these things, he is told it is necessary because you could not have a deportation order unless the person could be sent to prison. Then when it comes to Clause 6, we take every possible device to ensure that a deportation order is not to be made unless the offence is one for which there may be a sentence of imprisonment, but then we include here all sorts of cases in which ordinarily under our law there is no possibility of imprisonment.
We provide that the question whether an offence is punishable with imprisonment shall be determined without regard to any enactment restricting the imprisonment of a young offender or a first offender. Then further we provide that, notwithstanding that the court does not proceed to conviction, it is still to be regarded as if the person had been convicted. There is a good deal of force in what my noble friend Lord Donaldson said. We really are going around in circles, because a court does not grant an absolute discharge. This is providing an absolute discharge in the case of a conviction, but a court does not give an absolute discharge unless it is a very small matter and the probability is that a prosecution ought not to have been brought.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Donaldson for his support, and for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I hope very much that the Minister will give some further thought to this and perhaps we can return to it at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.22 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 23, line 16, after (" he ") insert (" knowingly ").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to which this Amendment relates, deals with seamen and aircraft crews, coming into this country under Clause 8(1). This paragraph provides that if any such seaman or member of the crew of an aircraft lawfully enters the United Kingdom without leave—that is, temporarily, until his ship or aircraft goes out in the ordinary way—and then remains without leave beyond the short period of time allowed under Clause 8(1), he commits an offence. The only question we are asking through this Amendment is why, when the word"knowingly"is in other parts of this clause, and when the phrase"without reasonable excuse"is in paragraph (d), there are no saving words in paragraph (c) providing that it is only if a person knowingly remains without leave, or without reasonable excuse remains without leave, that he commits an offence. I do not understand why"knowingly"should be regarded as important in one paragraph, and why"without reasonable excuse"should appear in another paragraph, yet neither of those terms appears in paragraph (c). I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): This point was rather exhaustively discussed in another place. There were a number of Amendments put forward by the honourable friends of the noble Lord seeking to insert the word"knowingly"into this clause. I think the majority of them were accepted by the Government. This one was not accepted and was negatived. It relates to a crew member who, for one reason or another, jumps his ship, a situation dealt with in Clause 8(1). It was thought that"knowingly"was inappropriate to that case, and I am bound to say that I think it is difficult to see any situation where a lack of knowledge of the facts would cause an injustice. We are dealing here with a summary offence. Summary offences, theoretically punishable by imprisonment for short periods of time, are very frequent on our Statute Book—careless driving is one of them—and some do and some do not involve a degree

965
of guilty knowledge. Usually there is some degree of guilty knowledge, but careless driving is an example of where there is none, and there are many others where there is none.
It was thought that this particular case was one where, although of course the crew member who jumps his ship normally does have the guilty knowledge, it was not desirable to make it an essential ingredient of the offence. The case which was cited by the Solicitor General, or perhaps by others in the debate in another place, was the case where the sailor concerned said that his watch was slow. A more obvious case, of course, is where he is too drunk to know that his ship has gone. I personally agree with the Government, and on the whole, without feeling passionately about this matter, I would submit that the Government are right.
LORD FOOT: May I say that I do not feel very passionately about it, either. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we try to get these things right. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the arguments which he has addressed to us under paragraph (c) do not apply to subsection (1)(a), where the words are:
" if contrary to this Act he knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave;…"?
Would it not be difficult, on the analogy that the noble and learned Lord has drawn, to imagine circumstances in which a person could enter the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order unconsciously, or could come in without leave, without being aware of the fact? I should have thought that all the arguments which the noble and learned Lord has so persuasively addressed to us about paragraph (c) apply equally to paragraph (a).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That only goes to show how reasonable the Government were in accepting the word"knowingly"in paragraph (a).
LORD FOOT: In spite of being wholly unpersuaded by the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave, at this hour of the night, to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 23, line 23, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: I do not want to press this point at any length because the issue has been discussed on previous Amendments. I should just like to ask the Minister whether this paragraph is necessary, because it repeats what is said effectively in Clause 24(1)(b). I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is thought that this is necessary. The Amendment would delete paragraph (e), which for ease of reference I will read out. It says that the offence is committed
" if, without reasonable excuse ",
the person accused
" fails to observe any restriction imposed on him under Schedule 2 or 3 to this Act as to residence or as to reporting to the police…"
The Amendment appears to be based on the view that paragraph (e) relates to the arrangements for police registration provided for in Clauses 3(1)(c) and 4(3). But that is not so. Failure to register under those arrangements is, as the noble Lord I think suggested, an offence against Clause 24(1)(b)(ii); failure to comply in any other respect with regulations under Clause 4 (3) is an offence against Clause 26(1)(e). But as the references to Schedules 2 and 3 make clear, paragraph (e) really relates to failure to comply with restrictions imposed under paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 2 on persons temporarily admitted pending a final decision on whether leave to enter is to be given or refused, or pending removal after refusal of leave to enter; and failure to comply with restrictions imposed under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 on a person released from custody while awaiting deportation. It is right that disregard of such restrictions by a person who has obtained temporary release from custody should be a criminal offence.
The power to admit a person temporarily pending a decision on whether or not to give him leave to enter is a new power which the Government seek under this Bill to avoid the need to keep passengers in custody in the small proportion of cases in which prompt decisions cannot be taken. But in some of these cases release will have to be coupled with restrictions about place of residence, et cetera. The alternative would be not unrestricted freedom but continued detention, so this Amendment would not be in the best interests of those whom Lord

967
Brockway has in mind. With this explanation, he might be invited to withdraw this Amendment. It may be that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. It is really a fundamental drafting point. The noble Lord thought perhaps that we were duplicating. The fact is that we are not.
LORD BROCKWAY: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.31 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 23, line 25, at end insert (" or to an immigration officer ").
The noble Lord said: With permission I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 130.
Paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides that a person liable to detention or detained pending his examination on entry into the country, and pending a decision whether or not to admit him, may be temporarily admitted without prejudice to a later exercise of the power to detain him and, further, that while such a person is at large he shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence and as to reporting to the police as may from time to time be notified to him in writing by an immigration officer.
These Amendments seek to provide that a person so at large may be subject to a restriction as to reporting to an immigration officer, instead of to the police. These Amendments are intended to deal with the not uncommon case where a person so set at large remains near the port while the Immigration Service attempt to resolve his case by further inquiry. He may, for example, be permitted to stay at a hotel. To meet the circumstances of such a case, it would be adequate, and convenient, if he were required to report to an immigration officer rather than to the police. This would save involving the police in a case in which they do not need to be concerned.
The Amendment to Clause 24 is an ancillary one, making it a criminal offence if the person al large fails to observe the requirement to report to the immigration officer. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 23, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon one accepted by the Government at the Commons Report stage which inserted the word"knowingly"into Clause 24(1)(a). Subsection (2) of the clause provides that a person who has not had notice of a deportation order made against him is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a) if he returns while the order is in force. Now that subsection (1)(a) is qualified with the word"knowingly ", subsection (2) is unnecessary and this Amendment deletes it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 23, line 38, leave out (" A constable or immigration officer ") and insert (" An immigration officer on duty and at a point of embarkation and disembarkation or a constable ")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to insert certain words and to delete others. This subsection is concerned with the right of a constable or an immigration officer to arrest somebody without warrant. We propose that, while that right should remain with a constable, it should be limited and qualified so that an immigration officer should be able to arrest without warrant only at the port of embarkation or disembarkation.
The short point here is that we think it inappropriate to extend the right to arrest without a warrant any further than we need. We do not like the idea of an immigration officer going off into the country to call in somebody and perhaps arrest him without a warrant. We think this power of arrest without a warrant should be limited if possible to the police, although we recognise that at a port of embarkation or disembarkation there may be a case for giving the immigration officer power to arrest without a warrant where the circumstances require it in the apprehension of a person who otherwise might get away. It is only to try to introduce a safeguard that this is proposed. It does not seem that it would make the administration of power of arrest any

969
more difficult, and it would be an improvement in the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I feel some difficulty about this because it pre-empts two Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, which object to such a right of arrest without warrant in any case. Here we are in what has always been the most illiberal part of our law. There has been very little law about it in the past because it has been nearly all administration. Whether we are right in giving these civilians, for whom I have the highest regard, executive officers or men promoted to be executive officers—these somewhat junior civil servants—a right to arrest seems to me very questionable. The police, I should have thought, are the proper officers to arrest people. Later we go on to find even more extensive powers given to immigration officers.
I hope that the Government may at least be prepared to consider the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which would place some limitation on the right of arrest which is being given to these admirable civil servants. Perhaps whichever Minister is to reply would be good enough to remind the Committee exactly how many civil servants to whom we are giving the right of arrest there are.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My noble friend Lord Denham will reply to the substance of the debate on this Amendment, hut, since I am somewhat closer to this subject I should say that the total strength of the immigration service is just over 2,000 people. I do not think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, should give the impression that they are junior civil servants, for these very great powers cannot be exercised by people who are not very experienced. I can assure the noble and learned Lord from first-hand experience that the system is such that any decision at the ports, including any refusal to give leave to land, has under the regulations to be referred to a chief immigration officer. These are very experienced people, and there are several of them permanently on duty night and day at the main ports of entry. At London Airport, for example, there is one of Her Majesty's Inspectors
970
who is based on London, and difficult cases can be referred to him; and likewise at Dover and the Channel ports.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to support my noble and learned friend. Is there any other class of civil servant who has the power of arrest? I find this a rather curious extension to throw into the Bill like this. I do not like it and I do not think that we should pass this without further discussion. We should have some good reason for extending this power.
LORD DENHAM: If I may reply, I will come on to the point the noble Iord has just made. It is true that on the rare occasions when immigration officers may have to exercise their power of arrest, they are most likely to be on duty examining passengers. An immigration officer might then observe an attempt at illegal entry, contrary to Clause 24(1)(a) or (f), or at illegal embarkation, contrary to Clause 24(1)(g), which could be prevented only by an immediate exercise of his power of arrest, there being no police officer at hand to intervene. But there may also be occasions when an immigration officer observes an attempt at illegal entry or embarkation when not actually on duty at a point of embarkation or disembarkation. This may happen as an officer is on his way to or from the point of duty.
I can give your Lordships an assurance that there is no question of an immigration officer being employed primarily for the purpose of tracking down offenders against Clause 24, or any other provision of the Bill, and arresting them. But there may well be occasions on which, in the course of their ordinary duties, immigration officers come across such offenders when no police officer is available. These need not be occasions when the immigration officer is at a point of embarkation or disembarkation. It would be undesirable therefore to limit the scope of their power in the way proposed in the Amendment. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that similar powers of arrest without warrant were conferred on immigration officers by the existing law, in the Aliens Order, 1953, Article 28(1), and in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, Section 14(1). They have not been exercised frequently or in a way which has given rise

971
to complaint. Immigration officers are officers of the Home Office, and the Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament for their conduct in this as in other respects.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I am not happy about this. In the first place, if they already have the power, why give it to them in the Bill? In the second place, the idea of immigration officers exercising this power off duty is to me repugnant. If we are to accept that immigration officers should have these powers, we should support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because it limits the power to its exercise while on duty. This business of meeting a chap in a pub, finding that he is an illegal immigrant and arresting him is unattractive. It does not happen elsewhere in life. An officer can exercise the right of a private citizen, but I do not think he should have any further right than that. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend feels as uncomfortable about this as I do.
11.44 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Denham, really answered the question about whether other civil servants have been given the power of arrest. It is always possible to find administratively convenient reasons for giving all civil servants more power to arrest people; but might this not be confined to chief immigration officers? To give 2,000 civil servants, who are gentlemen of the highest character and ability but who are the lowest grade of the executive class, a power of arrest is going a bit far. It is not a useful thing at quarter to twelve at night to discuss an important point like this, but I hope that the Government may give this matter further consideration.
LORD DENHAM: May I correct a mistake that my noble friend made? He said that there were 2,000 immigration officers, but I understand that the number is 1,000. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who said he thought that it was wrong that an immigration officer could arrest somebody whom he had met casually in a pub. I think the assurance that I gave, that immigration officers were not going to be used to track down people like this, should be of some comfort to the noble Lord.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: None.
LORD DENHAM: The intention is that an immigration officer while on his way to or from duty should be able to do what he considers to be his duty. The noble and learned Lord asked again whether there were other civil servants with powers of arrest. I cannot answer that question without notice, but we think that there are others. We think that possibly customs officers have that power; but, if I may, I will let the noble and learned Lord know.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also said that if under existing legislation immigration officers already had the power to arrest, why should we give it to them again? The reason is that this Bill is intended to replace the other two Acts, which will be repealed by this Bill; and if you do not give them back the power, they will no longer have it.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: That is the most satisfactory part of the noble Lord's answer.
LORD FOOT: I feel that this is not the sort of matter which we ought to be discussing at quarter to twelve at night. I think that the Government are treating this too lightly. They are proposing a substantial extension of the power of arrest without warrant, and that is a most important thing for them to be doing. If the Government would only give some indication that they are prepared to consider this matter again. I should be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment. It seems rather futile to divide the Committee at this hour of night, and I would ask the Government whether they will not throw out some small crumb of hope that the matter will be looked at again, because this is of considerable public importance.
LORD DENHAM: I do not think I can give the noble Lord that crumb of hope. I would point out to him that we are not discussing some new idea at this time of night. What we are discussing is a provision already in the Acts 'which this Bill is going to replace; and the noble Lord is suggesting that this provision, which is already there, should be removed. We are defending the status quo, and it is the noble Lord who is asking for change.
LORD FOOT: If your Lordships will forgive me for speaking again, I am not proposing that this power which now exists should be taken away. I am asking that' it should be circumscribed, and should only be exercisable (a) when the immigration officer is on duty, and (b) when he is at the point of embarkation or disembarkation.
LORD BROCKWAY: The noble Lord has given the assurance that immigration officers will not exercise this right of arrest except at their place of duty.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: He has not, with respect.
LORD BROCKWAY: I understand that the noble Lord had given that assurance.
LORD DENHAM: The assurance that I gave your Lordships was that immigration officers would not be used to track down illegal immigrants. But if they happen to come across them on their way to or from their work they should not be prevented from carrying out what they consider to be their duty, and what I must say I would consider to be their duty.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: We hope to stop it from being their duty. That is the point of this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: Perhaps I can make this point. I was somewhat reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said; namely, that in practice reference would be made to a chief immigration officer. That is fine, provided the immigration officer is on duty at his post; but if he should be off duty—and he must be either on or off—he may be well away from the point of embarkation or disembarkation and therefore unable to consult with the chief immigration officer. So that particular reassurance, where a particular immigration officer is off duty, is not convincing. It is really very worrying to us that a person off duty who is not a member of the police force should have the power to arrest without warrant.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I make two points? First of all, the position which the Opposition is attacking has been the law of the land for many years—for nine years in the case of Com-
974
monwealth immigrants and for much longer than that in the case of aliens. In my experience, no complaint has ever been levelled against the behaviour of immigration officers in this respect or in the exercise of their powers. No suggestion has been made by the Government that they are to be given wider instructions than they have had hitherto. No case has been brought forward by the Opposition of any suggestion that these powers have been misused in the past. I entirely understand that the Committee should be on its guard about all such matters but I must say I should be far more convinced by what has been said in support of the Amendment if the Opposition had produced a single case of the unsuitable exercise of these powers—which are of value in themselves, of course, because they lead to the apprehension of offenders who might otherwise escape.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: This is, after all, a Bill which is intended to tidy the matter up, and if we find something which is wrong I do not see why we should not try to put it right. As for not being able to produce a single case of abuse, we have not looked for one—I do not suppose there has been one. But really this has nothing to do with the matter. If the Bill allows something which is unsatisfactory, let us alter it. I cannot follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, at all.
LORD FOOT: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, whether he can tell us how many cases there have been of off duty immigration officers arresting without warrant? If he says that this has not been the subject matter of complaint, and if it has never been exercised by anybody off duty, of course there would be no occasion for complaint. Since the noble Lord asks us for statistics, perhaps he can tell us what statistics he has got.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: No, I cannot without notice answer that question, for obvious reasons; but I suggest to your Lordships that when Amendments are moved those who are moving them should furnish themselves beforehand with evidence in support of the Amendment and not say that they have not had time to collect that evidence.
LORD DENHAM: We have discussed this Amendment very fully and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press it. As my noble friend Lord Brooke has said, the point is in the existing law already and there have not, so far as we know, been any complaints about it. As I have said, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament for the conduct of immigration officers. I know that assurance was not acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but I hope that your Lordships may be prepared to leave matters there.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 105C:
Page 24, line 16, leave out (" or facilitating ").
The noble Lord said: I should like to say just a word or two about this Amendment. The word"facilitating"seems to be very ill-defined, and other powers in this Bill are sufficient to deal with the problem of illegal entry without introducing this vague concept. It is not already covered in the words in the first line of Clause 25:
" Any person knowingly concerned…"
Surely that covers"facilitating ". Therefore, I beg to move that it be left out.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Clause 25(1) creates the new offence of being
" knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating "
illegal entry. This Amendment would delete the words"or facilitating ". The Government have thought it desirable to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to make specific statutory provision for the punishment of those who engage in the smuggling of immigrants. At present they are usually prosecuted for conspiring to contravene the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts. By introducing a specific statutory offence the Bill is defining more clearly than the present law the circumstances in which such conduct is punishable.
In the Government's view it is right that the sanctions of the criminal law should be directed not only at those who take an active and leading part in organising illegal entry, but also at those who deliberately, and usually for motives of profit, connive at and assist in this traffic, including someone who merely
976
allows others to have the use of his ship, aircraft, vehicle or premises. Such a person cannot be said to secure the illegal entry of anyone, but he facilitates it. The range of acts which might be done for the purpose of furthering or assisting illegal entry is so wide that the only way of giving the offence its proper scope is to use the general words"securing or facilitating"which are to be found in Clause 25(1).
As the Bill stands, an offence under Clause 25(1) is committed only by a person who is knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating illegal entry, and then only if he knows that the persons whose entry is in question are illegal entrants, or if he has reasonable cause to believe this to be so. There is therefore no risk of innocent participants in a scheme for illegal entry being punished.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I rise on a point of order? We are unwittingly out of order here. Owing to a failure in the printing of the Marshalled List we have unwittingly strayed on to Clause 25, whereas the Marshalled List does not show that we have left Clause 24. The result is that we are discussing Clause 25 without having discussed the Question, That Clause 24 stand part. Perhaps if the Lord Chairman would put the Question we ought to postpone the discussion until we have discussed Clause 24 stand part.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): I beg your Lordships' pardon, the noble and learned Lord is perfectly correct. Clause 24 ends on the Marshalled List with Amendment 105B, and not as printed. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will now put the Question, That Clause 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Assisting illegal entry, and harbouring]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Amendment 105C resumed.
LORD BROCKWAY: I assume that all that remains for me to do is to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY had given notice of Amendment No. 105D:
Page 24, line 20, leave out (" £400 ") and insert (" £200 ")
The noble Lord said: In the case of Amendments 105D, 105E and 105F, I will not move them but will raise the matter as one of principle on a later Amendment.
12 midnight.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 24, line 25, leave out (" or has reasonable cause for believing to be ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 106 which stands in the name of my noble friends and myself. We are now discussing assisting illegal entry, Clause 25. The Amendment refers to subsection (2) which reads:
" Without prejudice to subsection (1) above a person knowingly harbouring anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be either an illegal entrant or a person who has committed an offence under section 24(1)(b) or (c) above, shall be guilty of an offence, punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not more than £400 or with imprisonment for not more than six months, or with both."
Before referring briefly to the Amendment, I think it would be appropriate to make it quite clear, although I hope it is unnecessary to do so, that my noble friends and I have no desire whatever to assist illegal entry, and no doubt this is the view of everyone here. Whatever one's views may be about the necessity for immigration laws, once they are passed they should be obeyed. Furthermore, I entirely agree with the view that illegal entry and the rackets sometimes associated with it and the publicity given to the rackets are harmful to community relations, and it had been my intention to make this point in moving this Amendment. I therefore agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said earlier on that particular aspect of the matter.
I think we are all agreed that illegal entry should be stopped so far as that is practicable, but in considering any law relating to this matter we also have to consider whether any new injustice is being introduced or, furthermore, whether there are any unforeseen consequences of the law which is being passed. I do not think it is necessary to pursue this matter of possible injustice except to say that
978
there may be cases of somebody who is providing accommodation for an illegal entrant and may find difficulty in proving that he has not reasonable cause for believing this person to be an illegal entrant. Apart from that, there are sonic consequences that may not have been foreseen when this was drafted.
Take the case of a hotel proprietor or the proprietor of a boarding house who does not wish to have any coloured persons in his establishment. All he has to do is to say that he dare not risk being found guilty of an offence under this clause, and therefore the only safe thing to do is to say"No"to any coloured person who asks for accommodation. If any accusation is brought against him under the Race Relations Act he will say,"I was only acting reasonably in my own interests because I did not want to commit an offence under Clause 25 ". That is not a far fetched case. It is quite possible that the legislation may be abused in this way, and it arises out of these words going so wide. A person may be guilty of an offence because it is alleged that he has reasonable cause for believing that a person may be an illegal entrant. It is mainly to press that particular aspect of the subsection—
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I feel that if this particular hotelier were going to do what the noble Lord has just suggested, he would have to refuse accommodation to any person who was not a United Kingdom citizen; he would be in very serious trouble otherwise. The Race Relations Board could certainly take up the case if he chose just coloured immigrants for this treatment.
LORD WADE: That may be, but the point I have been making is sound. I do not think this situation can have been intended when this particular clause was drafted. I should certainly like to hear the Minister's answer to this point. It is a point which deserves serious consideration, and I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I want to say in only one sentence that we support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on this issue because we have had representations from community relations officers on this point. They think that where people do not wish to take a coloured immigrant—I say this with great respect to Lord

979
Balfour—an excuse is likely to be used; they will use the excuse,"We thought he might be illegal and therefore we cannot take him." The noble and learned Lord may think that this is far fetched, but we have had representations on this point from people who are directly concerned with community relations, and they say this provision can be used as an excuse by persons who do not want to take coloured immigrants anyway.
12.7 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With great respect, I think this danger is a fanciful one. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, began by disclaiming any desire to encourage illegal entry. He need not have done so. Anyone less like a person who encourages illegal entry than the noble Lord, Lord Wade, it would be difficult to imagine. So that at any rate is among the fears we can discount wholly. The other fear is that somebody who was ill-intentioned could say of a person, either because he had a foreign accent or because he had a coloured face,"I won't take him in ", and when he was asked why, instead of admitting the truth that he was discriminating, he would say,"Well, I was so afraid of a prosecution under Clause 25 of the Immigration Bill ". I think that that wholly underestimates the intelligence of the county court in a race relations case, and wholly discounts the meaning of the words"reasonable grounds ".
With I forget how many aliens and how many Commonwealth immigrants in the country—they run into millions, anyhow—the fact that somebody happens to be of external origin is not reasonable grounds for thinking that he entered illegally, and I do not think that any court in its right mind could possibly come to the conclusion that it was. Therefore, however many representations there may have been, I think a little reflection would dispose of that fear as being a pure nightmare fantasy.
The purpose of the phrase"has reasonable grounds"is surely a simple one. Clause 25 has a slightly more serious range of offences than those contained in Clause 24, and for that reason they are what are called hybrid offences. They can be dealt with, as the great majority of them will be dealt with, summarily before petty sessions. All the
980
more serious cases or the cases in which a defendant wants to raise a question of principle or a substantial defence can be taken before a jury on indictment; in other words, they cover a wide range of different types of activity. To insist in every case on a prosecution establishing, actual knowledge would make the clause—not completely impossible, but in a large number of cases impossible to police at all. We all know of the situation where somebody deliberately shuts his eyes to facts in order to be able to say that he did not know them, and this is, I suppose, designed by the draftsman to cover that set of circumstances.
The movers of the Amendment may say that it is wrong to penalise somebody who is merely careless in failing to realise that the person he is harbouring has come here illegally, but they must surely recognise that to allow harbourers to escape conviction when all the facts point to illegal entry and they were deliberately shutting their eyes to the truth in order to be able to say,"We did not actually know because we did not see them come in ", is really to try to drive the proverbial coach and horses through the clause. It is the case that these words have a certain pedigree behind them. They have been the law, I think, for something like ten years because they are to be found in Section 4(2), I think it is, of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962—and I suspect they may even be in the Aliens Order, but I have not looked that one up.
I sympathise with the noble Lord's fears, but if the strength of the case is that it would encourage discrimination I simply do not believe it; and if the strength of the case is that one does not want to convict under this clause somebody who deliberately shuts his eyes to the truth in order to say that he did not have actual knowledge, I do not think there is any merit in it. With that explanation, I hope that there is very little difference between us, and I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, both as to his own bona fides, which are universally accepted in this House, and as to the dangers which he apprehends.
LORD FOOT: May I say respectfully to the noble and learned Lord that on the first matter I raised I do not think that he has seen the point. He said that

981
he does not think this will lead to an excuse for increased discrimination. He went on to point to the possibility of somebody using this excuse and having an action brought against him under the race relations law and being brought into the county court. He said that if that was put forward as a reason why he had taken the action he had, no county court judge would be persuaded that that was discrimination. But I do not think that that is what we are talking about: what we are talking about is that if this clause is written into the Bill it will necessarily be brought to the attention of all hotels, guest houses, lodging houses, and so on, throughout the land, because they want to know about this. These are the people who harbour people and who want to know what the law is. What we are concerned about, and what I understand the noble Baroness is concerned about, and rightly so, is that in fact this will be used by hotel proprietors and lodging house proprietors as a means of harassing the coloured population. It may be that only a small proportion, or perhaps none of them, will ever complain about it, but in fact it may be used in that way; and if it is so used it will be very harmful to community relations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is not fair in saying I have not seen the point. I think I have seen it very well. It so happens that in my previous incarnation I did a number of these cases before the courts. Sometimes when they got before the Divisional Court the cases were sufficiently important to take in leading counsel, and I did them. We are not talking in the main about hoteliers. I hope they do see the terms of this clause; it is intended that they should. But the reality of the sort of case which happens is that an illegal entrant is put into a house which is not a hotel and not a boarding house, but very often an unoccupied cottage owned by somebody who is the sort of person who in previous days would have been a smuggler and said:
" Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!"
if I may quote from Rudyard Kipling. I remember a case of some people walking along a road who told a very long story, but the fact was that their trousers were full of salt water and their shoes covered with sand from the seashore. No one
982
who saw them would have known that they were illegal entrants, but I dare say they would have reasonable grounds for thinking so if they harboured them. That is the sort of case. It is possible that I may have missed the point. It is also possible that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, does not know the facts of life.
LORD WADE: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, this is certainly not a nightmare fantasy, although it may be the time of night at which nightmare fantasies sometimes occur. I think this is a serious point and the representations which have been made are justified; there are very real fears about this. I am not proposing to press this to-night. I will give further thought to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.17 a.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 24, line 29, leave out (" £400 ") and insert (" £100 ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 106A and may I take with it No. 106B? The point is very simple. I suggest that the penalties imposed are too high. I accept the view that in the case of an importer of illegal immigrants for gain a high sentence is justified, but in most of these cases it will be a member of a family protecting another member of the family rather than that of a deliberate criminal. I would urge in those circumstances that the penalties are too high. I beg to move.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I should like to support my noble friend. This is really a rather important item. I shall be as quick as I can, but I do not think we should skimp the discussion. We are introducing legislation half of which is perfectly reasonable and the other half of which is not. By that rather cryptic sentence I mean that half of the people to whom it applies are people who are deliberately making money out of breaking the law, and none of us particularly minds if they are fairly heavily fined. But the other half will be people who are doing what, if we were in their position, we should do.

983
This is a very difficult thing to legislate against. Let me put this case. If you came from St. Lucia and had settled in this country and somebody turned up and said."I am on the run from the police; I have come in illegally, and I am from your island ", you would put him up—we all would. Whether we would be right to do so I do not know, but I do not think a single person would behave in any other way. This legislation applies to those people, and also to people who thoroughly deserve to be caught. That is the dilemma. The only way one can express one's disquiet is to support my noble friend Lord Brockway's Amendment, which reduces the penalties very considerably.
There is no question that this is in the minds of people who have come into this country and who have settled down. I have talked to them and found it. I think it is a real problem when you start legislating against other people in a way which would not be acceptable to yourselves if you were in their position. I think this is a very serious point indeed, and I feel it very strongly. I do not know what we ought to do about it, but at any rate I have aired my feelings. The best way I can express my view is by supporting the lower penalties which, in my opinion, are far too high anyway.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Surely we are talking about a maximum fine and a maximum sentence of imprisonment. I feel that to a great extent we have to consider not only the person who may be importing illegal immigrants but also the person who may be an accomplice hiding them in a cellar or somewhere like that. We need to clobber both those characters as hard as we possibly can. There have been appalling cases of people coming in as illegal immigrants (not only to this country, but to other countries), where they have been through the most frightful conditions. They have paid enormous sums of money—often before they have come here, or when they have arrived—and they have no redress if anything goes wrong, because they have been carrying out an illegal action.
May I take the example of another country for a moment? The illegal immigrants to Israel just after the war suffered—my God! they suffered. I feel
984
that for any sort of illegal immigration, or the trafficking of that sort of person, or the harbouring of them once they arrive, the maximum penalty should be the highest possible. If, on the other hand, this illegal immigrant comes in and is accommodated with a relation or a friend of his own kind, then I am quite certain the courts would look upon this from an entirely different light. You do not always get the maximum sentence when you are convicted of a crime. I feel that the maximum must be kept very high.
LORD DENHAM: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not move the first three Amendments in this set, Nos. 105D, E and F, which I feel rather went together with the Amendment which he is now moving, and I think he is also speaking to 106B.
Despite the efforts of the police and the other services concerned, the smuggling of illegal immigrants has continued in recent years and has caused the Government much concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, it is a trade which leads to misery and hardship for the immigrants themselves, and unless it is stamped out it is bound to have a continuing adverse effect on community relations in this country. For this reason, the Government have taken the opportunity presented by this Bill to invite Parliament to create the new offence of assisting illegal entry, with penalties including the forfeiture of the ship, aircraft, or vehicle, which should prove to be a deterrent in the future. The Bill also seeks to increase the monetary penalties for existing offences against immigration control. As a further sign of the Government's concern, Clause 35(2) provides that Clause 25, creating the new offence of assisting illegal entry, shall come into force one month after Royal Assent.
The Government see no case for reducing from £400 to £200 the maximum fine on summary conviction for assisting illegal entry and harbouring. As the Bill was introduced, the maximum fine for harbouring was £200, but this was increased in another place to £400. We cannot see any reason, in spite of what has been said, for reducing the clause to its original form, still less for reducing

985
it to £100. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
12.25 a.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 106E:
Page 24, line 32, at end insert (" the proof whereof shall lie on him ").
The noble Lord said: The intention behind this Amendment is that the prosecution should clearly be made responsible for proving the ingredients of the offence. It ought not to be for the defendant to be under any liability to prove that he came into the country illegally. This would be the issue in most cases and the onus of proof should be on the prosecution. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: I think I can set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, at rest over this. He has argued that it is for the prosecution to prove its case, but this is irrelevant. The question whether the constable or immigration officer had reasonable cause to make the arrest will not be an issue at the criminal trial, when the prosecution will have to establish the ingredients of the alleged offence in the normal way. The question whether the constable or immigration officer had reasonable cause will come up, if at all, not at the trial but in subsequent proceedings for damage for false arrest. If such Proceedings were brought it would be for the constable or immigration officer to establish that he did have reasonable cause. In other words, the Amendment is unnecessary because where in any proceedings a constable or immigration officer had to establish that he had reasonable cause to arrest a person, the proof would necessarily lie on him. The Amendment is not only unnecessary but is positively objectionable, because the insertion of these additional words would cast doubt on the effect of the many other statutory provisions which authorise arrest for reasonable cause but say nothing about the burden of proof. I hope that those assurances will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am not sure that I have followed all that the noble Lord has said, but I will take it for granted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12. 28 a.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 25, line 32, at end insert—
(" (8) Notwithstanding subsections (6) and (7) above, a ship of five hundred or more gross tons register or a public transport aircraft shall not be liable to forfeiture under or by virtue of this section, unless the offence in respect of or in connection with which the forfeiture may be ordered was substantially the object of the voyage during or in connection with which the offence was committed.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale who, unfortunately, is unable to be here this evening. I should also like to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Geddes who, with his expert knowledge, had intended to speak to this Amendment. Unfortunately, he, too, is unable to be present this evening. I should like to thank the Committee for staying up so late to allow me this opportunity of moving this Amendment, which is quite an important one. Briefly, it is to limit the powers of forfeiture under subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 25 to smaller vessels. My noble friends and myself contend that the provisions in this Bill for forfeiture of ships and aircraft used for the appalling trade of smuggling immigrants are unnecessarily oppressive and could establish a very dangerous precedent. The scope of the provisions of this Bill is unnecessarily severe. As the Minister has declared in another place, it is aimed at the small vessels directly taking part in the trade of smuggling, and not at large ocean-going vessels engaged in international commerce.
There are two main points to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. First, I appreciate that the enactment under this Bill will take place only after a decision by one of the higher courts. But when a ship such as the"Queen Elizabeth"or one of these vast tankers costing millions of pounds is involved, there is a possibility of delay while proceedings are taking their normal course. Even if proceedings were rapidly concluded, with the current pressure on courts there could be delay in getting these matters resolved. It should be borne in mind that the cost of delaying a large tanker is somewhere in the order

987
of £7 per minute, which, of course, when this is worked out over hours, can prove a very expensive business.
Secondly, the power of forfeiture in the Bill is, I believe, already being viewed with suspicion in some quarters abroad, and our action may be followed by foreign countries which normally follow our lead in these matters. There is a very serious danger that other States whose Executive or Judiciary is less scrupulous than those of the United Kingdom will note the example set by a major maritime country such as ourselves and may well insert into their laws similar provisions, but relating to other offences. British ships trade to all corners of the world, and it is frightening to contemplate a situation in which any State may have a law allowing the forfeiture of a ship because of some criminal offence by the master. Noble Lords who have asked me to speak on their behalf, and I am sure everyone in this Committee, agree with the seriousness of and the principle behind this clause. But as it stands now we really are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Chamber of Shipping, the major airlines and the principal shipowners are naturally most perturbed about the effect of and the repercussions caused by the threat of forfeiture, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
12.32 a.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This part of the Bill provides that if a person convicted on indictment of assisting illegal entry is the owner, charterer or captain of a ship or aircraft, or the owner or hirer of a land vehicle which is used in connection with the offence, the court may order the forfeiture of the ship, aircraft or vehicle. Subsection (7) requires the court first to give anyone claiming to be the owner of the ship, or to have any other interest in it, an opportunity to show cause why it should not be forfeited. The Amendment would add to the clause a subsection providing that no order is to be made for the forfeiture of a ship of not less than 500 tons gross, or of a public transport aircraft, unless the offence was"substantially the object"of the voyage in connection
988
with which it was committed. The Amendment, so I am advised, is modelled on Section 278(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952, which makes a similar provision in regard to ships of not less than 250 tons net, but not in regard to aircraft; and the Amendment arises from the concern which has been expressed to us not only by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, to whom Lord Macpherson of Drumochter referred, but also by the Chamber of Shipping and B.O.A.C.
In the light of these representations, it is necessary to explain for a few moments the background to Clause 25 in some detail. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, ended his speech with the phrase that this power is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is certainly a very grave power, but I do not think we can refer to illegal immigration in terms of a nut, as something of no great consequence. This is, as we discussed on an earlier Amendment, a matter of very considerable importance, with far-reaching repercussions for the future of community relations in this country.
Apart from the desirability that the immigration laws, like any others, should be enforced and should be observed, the Government attach great importance to the provision for forfeiture made in Clause 25(6). Despite a number of successful prosecutions for conspiracy to contravene the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, the problem of illegal entry persists and causes widespread concern. A power to order forfeiture will be a substantial extra deterrent to owners of ships, aircraft and vehicles who might be tempted to make them available for conveying illegal immigrants: the risk of losing a particular piece of valuable property is likely to weigh much more with a potential offender than liability to a fine of unlimited but uncertain amount. The power to order forfeiture, even where the owner is not himself convicted of an offence, is needed to cover cases in which he cannot be found or is outside the jurisdiction; it is also needed as an incentive to owners of ships, et cetera, to keep an eye on the use to which they are put.
Under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (which consolidated legislation dating back to a much earlier era) the seizure of a ship or aircraft as liable to forfeiture is an administrative act of the

989
Commissioners of Customs and Excise: an aggrieved owner may contest in the courts the question of liability to forfeiture but, once that question is settled, the court has no power to overrule the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion. Under Clause 25, on the other hand, the power of forfeiture is exercisable only by the higher courts, and they are bound to give the owner or any other interested party a hearing before an order for forfeiture is made. The Government are sure that there will in practice be no question of the courts using the power indiscriminately.
The criterion used in the Amendment—whether the offence was"substantially the object"of the voyage—is not one that would always produce a clear result, or a result that seems right on the merits. If, for example, a pleasure steamer were to take 60 British passengers across the Channel on a day trip, and on the return voyage were to bring over 40 immigrants with a view to their illegal entry, could it be said that the conveyance of the illegal entrants was"substantially the object"of the return voyage? In such a case forfeiture might be well justified on the merits.
Having said that, we recognise that this is a matter of legitimate concern to the shipping interests. When the Bill was before another place, the President of the Chamber of Shipping made representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Home Secretary took the view that because of drafting and other technical complexities, it was advisable for the matter to be thoroughly discussed between Home Office officials and the Chamber. I understand that a meeting has taken place and that, although agreement was not reached, we became better seized of the Chamber's difficulties; and we believe that representatives of the Chamber were helped to understand the position of the Government. I have taken careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, said in moving this Amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment as it stands, but I give the assurance that we shall be very ready to consider further representations from the shipping industry during the Recess
990
with a view to considering whether any Amendment to the Bill can be agreed upon, and we shall be inviting representatives of the Chamber of Shipping to come to the Home Office for a further meeting before the Report stage of the Bill.
12.40 a.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am very glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said in his closing sentences. I would support any practical action to suppress this illegal trade provided it was just, but, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, I am doubtful whether this clause as at present drafted would always do justice. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not mind my reminding him that on Amendment No. 101C he said that it was important to include a safeguard in the law so that courts should not recommend deportation for trivial offences. I think in this case also it will be necessary to include something in the law to ensure that forfeiture is not ordered by a court in a case where that would cause injustice.
I am specially concerned about the case of the man who is a charterer but who is classified under subsection (6) as an owner. Subsection (7) says that the owner shall have a right to be heard, but he is not the charterer, and in the case of a long-term charter he might not even hear that a case was coming on in court until it had done so and his opportunity had been lost. I was also impressed by Lord Macpherson of Drumochter's point that all countries watch the shipping laws of this country with considerable care. If our legislation creates a precedent which other countries can take as a pattern for their law, we may easily find other countries, to the disadvantage of our shipowners, introducing legislation of a related kind which would make it easier for them to impose forfeiture on British ships, pointing to this as a precedent. I am quite sure that this matter can be got right in the interval between now and the Report stage of the Bill, but so far that has not happened. I myself am not sufficiently enamoured of the Amendment we are discussing, but I am greatly reassured to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that the Government are prepared to work further on this

991
matter in conjunction with those concerned and to try to find an Amendment which will do justice.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has just said. I agree completely with the Minister in thinking that this Amendment will not do. I thought he provided good reasons for that view, but I have also received representations from the Chamber of Shipping which I find impressive. The concluding words of the Minister filled me with hope. I only add that this is a very difficult matter. I believe the Government have most legitimate desires which they are attempting to meet by these subsections, but I do not think they have succeeded yet. I think that in addition to any efforts of the Chamber of Shipping the utmost ingenuity of Parliamentary draftsmen may be required.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I wonder whether I may add one further word on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has certainly covered the important point here, but I should add to what he said that although in the wording of this measure the owner or manager or director of a company might be involved in illegal immigration, the problem I imagined was that where the crew, off their own bat and possibly unknown to the captain of the ship, aircraft or whatever it may be, might be attempting as a sideline to bring in illegal immigrants which, with a big cargo ship, would be a comparatively easy thing to do if the captain or the officer of the ship were not watching it. Very seldom in my experience at sea did we sail for a port without finding one illegal stowaway. Noble Lords would be amazed at the places they find. In eleven years at sea I suppose we managed to discover only one in a hundred stowaways trying to get from one place to another. So, if a crew were doing this, they could make a good traffic out of it, possibly for a long time, before the captain of the ship knew anything about it.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: It was said in another place that the provisions of this Bill were not directed against the owners of large passengers ships. It was intended
992
to deal with the smaller vessels. I am most obliged to the Minister for his reply. I was not really meaning to be frivolous in my remark about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Previously we had been talking about a penalty of £400 for some of these offences and as I was talking about ships worth £10 or £20 million, I think there is a certain justification for my remark. In view of the fact that the Minister has said that he will think about this point, I should be very glad if he could draft an Amendment which would meet the points that have been made this evening and also the Government's case.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think that would be going a little farther than what I said. My right honourable friend's view on this, having received representations, is that the representatives of the shipping interests and the officials concerned should meet to try to reach agreement. If they reach agreement, I think we need have no fear that the Government draftsmen's services will not be called upon to express that agreement in a form that can be put in an Act of Parliament. But this is a more technical matter than meets the eye at first sight and I think most noble Lords who have spoken would agree that those concerned should meet with representatives of my Department to see what form can be agreed.
In doing so, I should like to take careful note of the points made in the course of the debate. Although it is true to say that small aircraft and ships are those mainly used for the purpose of illegal immigration, we cannot rule out large cargo ships or passenger vessels. Some noble Lords may remember the case of immigration from Israel in the late 'forties—admittedly an extreme case—when substantial ships were used for this purpose. There are examples where large ships could be used in present day conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked about provisions in our legislation being copied elsewhere. As I mentioned in my previous speech, ships which are engaged in smuggling goods become liable for forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952, and if any country is looking round for a precedent, it would find one there. But I should like to take note of the various points

993
that have been expressed and see whether, after further consideration, we can find some way of meeting the concern of shipowners and of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: May I inject a sour note into the discussion? Where people are concerned, even miserable people, everybody is entitled to be satisfied. If there is a £1 million ship with three immigrants on board, we should leave it to the court to decide what to do with it.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: In view of the very helpful remarks of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This may be a convenient moment to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
  E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
  GOVERNMENT POLICY AND ISSUE OF DOCUMENTS
  GOVERNMENT POLICY AND ISSUE OF DOCUMENTS
  LEGAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  LEGAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE