Sitting of 4 August 1971

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

    Housing Finance
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received to date about the proposals contained in the White Paper, The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727; and what reply he has sent.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have received and acknowledged representations from the Scottish Landowners Federation and from Coatbridge Town Council.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is very gratifying. I am sure that the landowners are very interested in this matter.
    Will the Secretary of State tell us how the speech made by the Under-Secretary, when winding up the debate on this White Paper last Thursday in which he said that no saving in public expenditure was involved, squares with paragraph 35 of the White Paper "New Policies for Public Spending" which specifically states:
    "By the middle of the decade this is expected to lead to a saving in public expenditure of £100–£200 million …"?
    That is clearly a contradiction. Will the right hon. Gentleman clear it up for the House and for the country?
    Mr. Campbell: I have done this before, but I am glad to do it again for the hon. Gentleman. The amount now being spent on subsidies is not to be reduced. In fact, for Scotland it is likely to increase
    1550
    in the coming years. But if the previous system had continued, the amount would have escalated into a very much greater sum by the middle 1970s. That is where the saving comes in.
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now withdraw his proposals on the reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727, in view of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 19th July, 1971 concerning a voluntary prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir.
    Dr. Mabon: Does the Secretary of State realise that we did not get an answer to our argument that this was inflationary within the so-called prices and incomes policy which the Government are seeking to adopt? Will he comment on that and confirm that, on the day after the White Paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) referred in the last Question, he said, according to the Glasgow Herald, that he was cutting that figure, which he talked about as escalating, by £10 million to £20 million in the fiscal year 1973–74?
    Mr. Campbell: I should need to see the article in the Glasgow Herald, which I have not seen and which no one has produced to me, to answer the hon. Gentleman's last point and to explain on what it was based. Regarding the present situation and the proposals in the White Paper, the annual average increase in council rents is to be limited to 50p a week. That means that the rents can increase only by reasonable steps each year. That increase must be related also to the equivalent limit which the Labour Government set on the average increase in rents of 37½p at the height of a pay freeze.
    Mr. Strang: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that these proposals, in conjunction with the other means tests, will create a situation which many working men in Scotland, although they get a 25 per cent. increase in wages, will be worse off in consequence of all the means-tested benefits which they will lose?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not accept that. The means test, if the hon. Gentleman

    1551
    wishes to refer to it as such, is not new. It is a test under rent rebate schemes which was strongly advocated by the Labour Government in at least two circulars sent to all local authorities in Scotland.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to increase the proportion of home ownership in Scotland; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: We have abolished betterment levy and the Land Commission and we have halved selective employment tax. We have widened the scope of the option mortgage scheme and reached agreement with the building societies that they should extend their lending arrangements. We have removed the limit on local authority mortgage lending and have told authorities that they are free to sell council houses.
    Mr. Costain: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Does he appreciate that the percentage of owner-occupied houses in Scotland is 25 per cent. compared with 50 per cent. in England, 53 per cent. in Wales and 55 per cent. in Czechoslovakia? Does he appreciate that the action which he has taken will do much to stimulate house ownership and help to relieve unemployment? Has his attention been drawn to the Report produced by the then Minister of Public Building and Works in 1963 on the Production of Building Components in Shipyards? Does that Report help the shipyard order position?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for housing in Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of the contribution which the private sector, in addition to the public sector, can make to housing in Scotland. I am also aware of the survey on housing in Scotland carried out by Professor Cullingworth in which he indicated that the proportion of home ownership in Scotland was lower than anywhere else west of the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Small: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving public authorities the
    1552
    power to build houses for home ownership and for sale?
    Mr. Campbell: We have already given local authorities guidance on and approval for the sale of council houses in certain circumstances. That is what we are concentrating on now.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the local authorities which have now made written submissions to him with regard to the boundary changes envisaged in the recent White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4583.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: With permission, I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it will be an extensive list? As this matter is of vital importance, in view of forthcoming legislation, will he provide access to the documents by placing them either in the Library of the House or in Dover House?
    Mr. Campbell: The authorities have been invited to put forward their views. Many of them are concerned with local problems of minor adjustments. I do not think that much would be gained by circulating their views. I should certainly need to ask their permission before they were published. The work is continuing and the information that has been sent in has been most helpful to the Government in reaching conclusions on these problems.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to publish this information. Does he realise that it has taken five Questions and a dozen letters to get this out of him?
    Mr. Campbell: What I have said is that I shall publish the list of authorities which have sent in their representations. I have not said that I shall publish all the representations.
    Following is the information:

    County Councils

    Aberdeen

    Berwick

    Angus

    Clackmannan

    Argyll

    Dumfries

    Banff

    Dunbarton

    1553

    County Councils

    East Lothian

    Perth

    Fife

    Renfrew

    Inverness

    Ross & Cromarty

    Kincardine

    Roxburgh

    Kirkcudbright

    Selkirk

    Midlothian

    Stirling

    Moray

    Sutherland

    Moray & Nairn

    West Lothian

    Nairn

    Wigtown

    Peebles

    Zetland

    Town Councils

    Aberdeen

    Kilrenny, Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester

    Aberlour

    Airdrie

    Alloa

    Kilsyth

    Arbroath

    Kilminning

    Ardrossan

    Kingussie

    Armadale

    Kinross

    Ayr

    Kirkcaldy

    Bearsden

    Kirkintilloch

    Biggar

    Kirriemuir

    Bishopbriggs

    Ladybank

    Bonnyrigg & Lasswade

    Lanark

    Langholm

    Burntisland

    Leven

    Campbeltown

    Linlithgow

    Clydebank

    Loanhead

    Coatbridge

    Lochgelly

    Coldstream

    Lochgilphead

    Cove and Kilcreggan

    Lochmaben

    Cowdenbeath

    Markinch

    Cumbernauld

    Maybole

    Cumnock and Holmhead

    Milngavie

    Moffat

    Cupar

    Monifieth

    Dalkeith

    Motherwell and Wishaw

    Dornoch

    Dumbarton

    Musselburgh

    Dundee

    Nairn

    Dunfermline

    Newburgh

    Dunoon

    New Galloway

    Duns

    Newport-on-Tay

    East Kilbride

    North Berwick

    Edinburgh

    Paisley

    Elie and Earlsferry

    Penicuik

    Ellon

    Perth

    Eyemouth

    Peterhead

    Falkirk

    Pitlochry

    Falkland

    Pittenweem

    Forfar

    Port Glasgow

    Fortrose

    Portsoy

    Galashiels

    Prestwick

    Girvan

    Queensferry

    Gourock

    Rothesay

    Grangemouth

    St. Andrews

    Grantown-on-Spey

    St. Monance

    Greenock

    Saltcoats

    Haddington

    Sanquhar

    Hamilton

    Selkirk

    Hawick

    Stevenston

    Helensburgh

    Stirling

    Inverkeithing

    Stornoway

    Inverness

    Stranraer

    Inverurie

    Tain

    Irvine

    Tayport

    Jedburgh

    Troon

    Johnstone

    Whitburn

    Kelso

    Wick

    Kilmarnock

    Wigtown

    1554

    District Councils

    Aberdeen

    Skye

    Deeside

    Lower Deeside

    Huntly

    First District Lanark

    Turriff

    Second District Lanark

    Monifieth

    Ardnamurchan

    Third District Lanark

    Cowal

    Fourth District Lanark

    Kintyre

    Lorn, North

    Sixth District Lanark

    Lorn, South

    Seventh District Lanark

    Mid Argyll

    Ayr No. 1

    Ninth District Lanark

    Cumnock

    Currie

    Dalmellington

    Broughton

    Maybole

    Linton

    West Kilbride

    Perth

    Buckie

    First District Renfrew

    Cullen

    Avoch

    East District Berwick

    Fearn

    West District Berwick

    Fortrose

    Arran

    Invergordon

    Alloa

    South West Ross and Cromarty

    Old Kilpatrick

    Vale of Leven

    Tain

    North Berwick

    Jedburgh

    Cupar

    Kelso

    Dunfermline

    Central No. 1 Stirling

    Glenrothes

    Central No. 2 Stirling

    Lochgelly

    Western No. 1 Stirling

    St. Andrews

    Western No. 3 Stirling

    Wemyss

    Tongue & Farr

    Badenoch

    Kirkliston & Winchburgh

    Harris

    Lochaber

    Linlithgow

    Highlands and Islands Development Board
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given to providing the Highlands and Islands Development Board with financial incentive differential to attract industry as was recommended by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Since the Select Committee reported there have been several discussions with the Board about the industrial incentives available in the Highlands and Islands. These have been increased during this period, and the present differential seems to me reasonable.
    Mr. Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit, as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs established, that the differential is not enough to make any difference to an investment decision for a company in the Highlands? If the Government believe in the development

    1555
    of the Highlands, especially at a time when unemployment is higher than for 20 years, the hon. Gentleman must act now to change the situation or the Highlands will again be the tail-end Charlie at the time of recession.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We believe in development in the Highlands. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ignore the improvements that have been made in incentives since the Select Committee's Report. There have been improvements in building grants and in loans for advance factories. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is under discussion with the Board, and that we shall keep the position under review.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the economic collapse in West Central Scotland in particular and the measures taken to attract industry there, such as the creation of a special development area, make it all the more difficult for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to attract industry to the Highlands? Is he not aware, also, that the miserable measures which he has taken since the Select Committee reported are completely inadequate to attract new manufacturing industry to the Highlands?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is ungrateful for what has been done for the Highlands. I ask him to bear two points in mind. The special incentives given to other areas decrease the differential by a certain amount, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that the kind of industry which the Highlands attract is not necessarily the same as that attracted to the central area. Second, despite what is happening in central Scotland, and the help that is given there, the Highland area enjoys special advantages in loans and grant assistance.
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was approved by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in grants and loans in the first quarter of 1971; and how this figure compares with the corresponding periods in 1969 and 1970.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the first quarter of 1971 the Board approved grants and loans amounting to £490,266. The figures for the same quarter in 1970 and 1969 are £372,194 and £194,000.
    Mr. Gray: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which entirely contradict some of the suggestions by hon. Members opposite that the Board is sleeping. He will know, of course, that a great amount of these loans and grants have gone to help with the increase in tourist accommodation, but, unfortunately, this is still much below what is required in the Highlands. Would he consult his right hon. Friend so that necessary legislation may be introduced to provide grants to people buying large old houses and improving them? At present, these grants are not available because they are not building additional rooms. This is very important in the Highlands.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his supplementary question. The figures that I have announced are an increase of over £100,000 on the past year. I certainly take note of what he said in the second part of his question.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the real need in the Highlands is for an increase in the number of jobs in manufacturing industries, and that this is where the new Board seems to be less successful than its predecessor?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Equally, what the hon. Member must realise is that, while one wants to see more jobs in Scotland—more jobs in relation to the money spent—it is particularly encouraging, in the face of the legacy of economic stagnation that his party left behind when they left office, that in the first quarter of this year the Board found so many projects which were worth approving.
    Dr. Miller: Is this sum outwith any sums which might be spent by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in purchasing land for public ownership in Scotland, or is it included in this amount?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The answer is quite simple. These are grants and loans approved for projects in the Highlands or for individuals coming to help with those projects. I do not think that that supplementary has anything at all to do with this Question.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Highlands and Islands Development Board regarding the

    1557
    effect of recent tax changes on the prosperity of Highland counties.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, but I am satisfied that the effects will be beneficial.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my estimate is that the selective employment tax has cost the Highland counties over £10 million? Surely the Board welcomes the progressive removal of this burden, which has taken out £2 million more than the Board's splendid work has put in.
    Mr. Campbell: I believe that my hon. Friend has already received information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his first point. The halving of S.E.T. and the announcement that it will be abolished in two years has been greeted with great relief by the Highlands, an area which probably suffered from it more than any other part of Britain.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to rebut the nonsensical figures of his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)? Is he unaware that more than twice the amount which has been alleged to have been collected in S.E.T. was spent on one project in Invergorden alone and that, since the abolition of investment grants, the Highlands have seen no new major industry coming in at all? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to build on the foundations laid by the previous Government to build up manufacturing industry in the Moray Firth area?
    Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to a reply just now, he will have heard that the increase in the amount of grant and loan given in the first quarter of 1971 represented a considerable increase on the amounts which the Highlands and Islands Development Board had given out for new projects in the same period in the previous two years.

    Athletics (All-Weather Running Tracks)
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice and encouragement he has given to local authorities for the provision of all-weather
    1558
    running tracks for the training and coaching of young athletes, particularly in the Glasgow area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The provision of sports facilities is primarily a matter for local authorities. Advice is available to them from both the Scottish Office and the Scottish Council of Physical Recreation on individual proposals, for example on the most appropriate surfaces for running tracks. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I intend to encourage the provision of sports and recreational facilities in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench and hope that he will have some happy years there—[Interruption.] I can promise him—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The idea that Scottish Question Time can be a happy time is a little unusual.
    Mr. Buchanan: Apart from anything else, I am a realist, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that future Questions will not be as easy as this one today.
    I appreciate that power to provide these facilities rests with local authorities, but to date they have not made very much progress in providing all-weather tracks. I should like the hon. Gentleman to move from encouraging to stimulating local authorities to provide these tracks.
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am somewhat apprehensive at hearing my own voice again.
    The scheme for grants to local sports clubs ended on 10th June, 1971. It will be open to local sports clubs and to local authorities to submit applications for grants towards such schemes to the new Executive Sports Council when it comes into being on 1st April, 1972. It will be for the Council to prepare its new scheme of grants and to decide whether to grant aid any particular project.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to inform the House of any developments about the possibility of

    1559
    using Hampden Park as a sports centre for the whole of Scotland?
    Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend has had discussions with Hampden Park, but at this stage I am not in a position to make any statement.

    Rents
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average rent of county councils in the landward areas and what the standard rent will be after the transitional period as contained in the White Paper, The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727;
    (2) what is the estimated deficit on the Housing Revenue Account of county councils; and what average increase per house on rent per annum would be required to square the Housing Revenue Account.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what the standard rent will be in the burghs of Buckhaven and Methil, and Kirkcaldy, after the transitional period, as stated in the White Paper, The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland, Command Paper No. 4727.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The information about present rents and about deficits on housing revenue accounts is published in "Rents of Houses owned by Public Authorities in Scotland, 1970", Cmnd 4607, and "Rating Review January 1971". The level of rents required to balance housing revenue accounts will depend on the amounts of the new subsidies and increased costs, which will vary from authority to authority and cannot be forecast with any precision.
    Mr. Eadie: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has a responsibility to inform council tenants and local authorities in Scotland that if the terms of the White Paper become law it will mean that after the transitional period council tenants and other public bodies will have £156 added to their present average rents per year, and that that will be the standard rent?
    Second, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer to the second part of the Question shows that if local authorities were to square their
    1560
    housing revenue accounts the figure would be less of a rent increase than £156? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to back the trade union movement in its demand for increased wages to meet this colossal and scandalous proposition of increased rents?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's estimates. The rebate scheme will, for the first time, be a national scheme throughout the public sector and the private sector. It will help those who cannot afford the new rents. As I said earlier today, rents can rise only by a certain reasonable step each year. The previous Government doubled the average council house rent in Scotland in 5½ years. Ratepayers in Scotland will benefit—and many tenants are ratepayers, too—because at the moment they are paying 37 per cent. of the cost of council housing, with tenants paying 40 per cent.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituency is an area of high unemployment, with a present rate of 6·3 per cent., and that it is also a low-wage-earning area? It is quite easy to project what the standard rent will be in Kirkcaldy at the end of the transitional period, particularly in respect of the four-apartment house. I understand that the weekly payment will be more than £5.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to provide more generous rent rebates under this scheme or, better still, will he tear up this White Paper on Housing Finance and introduce an improved and more generous subsidy structure for providing houses in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention the housing expenditure subsidy and the Exchequer subsidy towards the rent rebate schemes. These schemes will apply to persons who are unemployed or who receive low incomes. This is the first time that there has been a scheme to cover all such people.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that this scheme is designed for areas where there are high unemployment and low incomes, and that this scheme will be of benefit not only in council housing but also in private housing?
    Mr. Campbell: It will certainly benefit the whole housing situation in Scotland to remove the incredible distortions which exist at present, when ratepayers are paying nearly as much as tenants for council housing. At the same time, it will enable us to move forward with slum clearance and many other things which we need to carry out.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that these Questions relate to the standard rent which is aimed at balancing the housing revenue account? Will the right hon. Gentleman not be honest and tell us that in the constituency of Motherwell it would require a multiplication of the present rent by a factor of three in order to reach the standard rent?
    Mr. Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman raised this matter in Committee he made a calculation and said that if the rent were trebled it would produce a standard rent of £6 in Motherwell. We did a quick check and discovered that he was wrong and that trebling the rent would produce a standard rent of £3 15s. That calculation was made quickly, but it showed that the hon. Gentleman was twice out in his own estimate.

    Grant-aided Schools
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the amounts of grants being made to grant-aided schools in Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: Subject to the condition that the total grant must not exceed the school's deficit, the basic grants set out in the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations, 1971 may be increased in 1971–72 by the amounts shown in the table which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I cannot yet say how much will actually be paid.
    Mr. Smith: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his promotion? I do not want to land him with a skeleton which his predecessor left behind in his cupboard, but does not he recall that we debated this matter on 13th July when questions were asked by hon. Members on this side of the House about the amount to be paid to grant-aided schools in Scotland? The information was not given, but it appeared on
    1562
    20th July in the Press, to whom it was presumably given on 19th July. Is this not a disgraceful way of treating the House of Commons, to produce in the Press figures which have been requested but which have been withheld from the House? Will the hon. Gentleman, who I know was not responsible for this since the bird who was responsible has flown, undertake not to treat Parliament in such a disgraceful way?
    Mr. Monro: I cannot accept the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. The purpose of the amending Regulations which we debated that night was not to prescribe an additional amount of grant but to enable the Secretary of State to pay increased grant to take account of rises in prices and costs. The actual amounts were not determined in advance and they will not be available until the schools' final accounts have been received and examined.
    Mr. Buchan: May I also add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his promotion, although I cannot hope or expect him to be on the Government side of the House for very much longer?
    Is he aware that this answer is not good enough? The subject was debated in the House, and the following week we were given the figures in the Press, but only today are we told that the information will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible, but I hope that he will stiffen up some of his colleagues in the Scottish Office and not insult Parliament, as has happened on this occasion.
    Mr. Monro: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot accept it. The important point in the debate was that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) stated that relevant costs had increased by 20 per cent. and that the grant would take account of this.
    Mr. MacArthur: May I also add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend on his new cap? May I ask him to resist and reject every assault on variety and freedom of choice in education?
    Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend. He can rest assured that I shall be supporting the grant-aided schools.
    Following is the table:

    GRANT-AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS

    MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS OF GRANT WHICH MAY BE PAID IN THE SCHOOLS' FINANCIAL YEAR 1971–72

    Name of School

    Amount £

    Albyn School for Girls

    9,266

    Robert Gordon's College

    20,974

    St. Margaret's School

    5,897

    High School of Dundee

    19,844

    Merchant Company Schools:

    Daniel Stewart's College

    75,402

    Mary Erskine School for Girls

    George Watson's College

    George Watson's Ladies' College

    George Heriot's School

    20,953

    John Watson's School

    6,147

    Melville College

    7,835

    St. Mary's Cathedral Choir School

    971

    Craigholme School for Girls

    9,459

    Hutchesons' Boys' Grammar School

    30,274

    Hutchesons' Girls' Grammar School

    Kelvinside Academy

    8,800

    Laurel Bank School

    11,333

    St. Aloysius' College

    13,246

    Westbourne School for Girls

    9,063

    Troon, Marr College

    16,761

    Dollar Academy

    17,316

    Maxwelltown, Benedictine Convent School

    3,194

    Dumfries, St. Joseph's College

    6,176

    Crieff, Morrison's Academy, Boys' School

    17,266

    Crieff, Morrison's Academy, Girls' School

    Girls' School Company Limited:

    Glasgow, The Park School

    26,226

    Helensburgh, St. Bride's School

    Kilmacolm, St. Columba's School

    Upper Clyde Shipyards
    Mr. Buchanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the men employed in the Upper Clyde shipyards.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have had a number of such discussions, formal and informal, the most recent being a long meeting in Glasgow yesterday.
    Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that meeting people in order to sell a brutal policy after it has been decided hardly qualifies for the word "discussions". Has the right hon. Gentleman learned from his meetings yesterday that every section of Scottish opinion is shocked and appalled at the butchery decision which was made, and in saying that I include the Churches, the town council, the trade unions, industry and commerce alike? Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade his right hon.
    1564
    Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seems to be making the running here, to rescind his policy and to come up with a sensible policy for the development of the yards along with the workers who are demonstrating for the right to work?
    Mr. Campbell: That is not a reflection of the discussions in which I took part yesterday, when there were representatives of all those concerned with this very difficult problem. We had an opportunity of discussing and explaining the advice profferred by the four advisers on shipbuilding in the Upper Clyde, which was issued only last Thursday afternoon. Having debated that in Parliament, my right hon. Friend and I had the opportunity of very long discussions with the different sections concerned, including shop stewards. Some of the shop stewards took the line which the hon. Gentleman described, but others who took part in our discussions were considering and discussing the proposals which had been put forward by the four advisers, who included three leading Scots whose main concern must be the welfare of Scotland and Clydeside.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept or reject any responsibility for maintaining existing employment in U.C.S. until a viable alternative exists?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have already said in this House, my objective is to maintain the maximum of employment while reconstructing and rearranging the shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde so that it will become a successful industry which can handle orders and compete with the rest of the world.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon the defensive complacency of the Government Front Bench and tell us whether he has been at all disturbed in his view of the Tightness of Cabinet decisions by what he has heard and seen in the last week? Is he not now convinced, as Secretary of State for Scotland, that there is a case for asking the Cabinet to reconsider its decision?
    Mr. Campbell: Any defensive complacency which I have observed has come from right hon. Members opposite, who were responsible for setting up U.C.S.

    1565
    and who left us with this problem which exploded in the form of a liquidation. We have been discussing proposals that were put forward by the advisory group and which had to be put forward quickly because in Scotland the period of provisional liquidation can last for only a certain time. The Government were guaranteeing wages during that period, and it is our intention, having explained these matters, to do what the Government think should be done, but it requires co-operation by all concerned.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Lanarkshire (Public Works Programme)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £33 million public works programme has been asked for by Lanarkshire County Council; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have not yet received the Council's full proposals, but under the primary school improvement programme for 1971–72 and 1972–73, about half of which is to be provided from the £33 million, proposals by the Council totalling £1,350,000 have already been approved.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he gets these proposals from the local authority concerned, included among some of the things they want are at least three primary schools in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this matter? We want him to give us, first, the schools which are so much required and, secondly, jobs in Lanarkshire, bearing in mind that 8·3 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed at the moment.
    Mr. Campbell: As I said in my original reply, we have already extended a considerable amount of this new programme to primary school improvement in Lanarkshire. I am well aware of the problems of Lanarkshire; I received a deputation from the Lanarkshire
    1566
    Development Council only about a week ago.

    General Practitioners (Remuneration)
    Dr. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average amount paid to principals in general medical practice in Scotland in respect of ancillary assistance provided by general practitioners in each year since such payments began; and what he expects it to be in 1971.
    Mr. Monro: As the Answer contains a number of figures I shall with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Miller: In adding my congratulations to the hon. Member, may I hope that his post will interfere less with his rugby than the Prime Minister's post interferes with his sailing? In view of the fact that this money is being paid to general practitioners in addition to an already substantial remuneration, amounting in England and Wales—there is no reason to think that it is less in Scotland—to £7,800, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to do everything possible to encourage in Scotland the provision of health centres and group practice, so that the doctors who are receiving this very large sum of money can provide patients with better attention and better facilities than they provide at present?
    Mr. Monro: I am glad that the hon. Member thinks that sailing and rugby are manly sports. His supplementary question covers his second Question, No. 27. I am particularly glad that a rising amount of money is going to ancillary staff—both in the number of practices making claims and in the total payments. This is an encouraging trend and should provide better facilities for patients.
    Following is the information:
    Direct payments to general medical practitioners for ancillary staff from 1st October, 1966 are set out in the table below. Details are available only of the practices and not of the principals making claims. I expect that there will be a further increase in the amount paid in 1971–72. Apart from these direct payments the gross remuneration of general medical practitioners contains an allowance for practice expenses which includes

    1567
    an element for payments for ancillary staff.

    (a) Year ended 31st March

    (b) Total payments £

    (c) Number of practices making claims

    (d) Average payment per practice making claim £

    1967

    65,820

    702

    94

    1968

    346,890

    789

    440

    1969

    452,876

    826

    548

    1970

    575,201

    841

    684

    1971

    702,240

    859

    818

    Dr. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average remuneration paid to principals in general medical practice in Scotland in each of the years 1960 to 1970; and what he expects it to be in 1971.
    Mr. Monro: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it not a fact that the sum to emerge will be very high? I indicated earlier that it is likely to be in the region of £7,800. As consultations are taking place with the medical profession for a further increase, will he ask his right hon. Friend to confer with the Secretary of State for the Social Services with a view to the medical profession being urged to help the para-medical branches—I have in mind the medical laboratory technicans—without whom the whole of the medical profession would collapse? Will the hon. Gentleman see that pressure is brought to bear on the medical profession to help the lower-paid people who work in this important branch of medicine?
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman speaks from personal experience. I will look into the matter and give it further consideration.
    Following is the information:
    The average gross remuneration paid to principals in general medical practice in Scotland in each of the financial years from 1960–1961 to 1970–1971 is set out in the table below. The remuneration of general practitioners for 1971–72 is currently under consideration.

    Year ended

    Average Gross Remuneration of Principal General Medical Practitioners in Scotland £

    31st March, 1961

    3,123

    31st March, 1962

    3,179

    31st March, 1963

    3,234

    31st March, 1964

    3,603

    31st March, 1965

    3,515

    31st March, 1966

    3,803

    31st March, 1967

    3,979

    31st March, 1968

    4,769

    31st March, 1969

    4,978

    31st March, 1970

    5,372

    31st March, 1971

    6,604

    Sports Council for Scotland
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the proposed Scottish Sports Council; and whether this Council will be empowered to make grants to local sports clubs.
    Mr. Monro: The Sports Council for Scotland will have a wide discretion in making grants from the funds available to it and it will be open to the Council to assist local voluntary sports clubs where it so decides.
    Mr. Sproat: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his predecessor on achieving a different system of disbursement of grants for Scotland than obtains in England? What is the earliest date by which applications for these grants will be entertained? Will it be before April, 1972?
    Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As he knows, the present system was wound up in June and the new system will begin in April next year. I hope to announce the members of the new Sports Council later in the autumn. I hope that soon after the body is set up and has decided its policies, it will be able to receive applications.
    Mr. Dalyell: What consultations did take place on this new scheme with the governing bodies of sport in Scotland?
    Mr. Monro: The Government have of course been in close touch with the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation, and in the light of all the considerations, we believe that this is the best result for Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Then the answer is that you have not consulted them.

    Primary School Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary school teachers in Glasgow have lost their salary addition as a result of their schools being no longer designated schools of teacher shortage.
    Mr. Monro: I understand from Glasgow Education Authority that the number will be about 560.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it the case that no proper notice was given to the teachers affected and that there was no proper consultation with the teachers' organisations concerned? Would my hon. Friend ensure that Glasgow Corporation takes into account the views of the teaching profession?
    Mr. Monro: This is a matter for the Corporation—it is free to consult should it wish to do so—but I will pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to the authority.

    Sugar Beet
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland from information available to him from international sources, how many countries in Europe grow sugar beet in a more northerly latitude than the Scottish Border.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Beet is grown in Denmark and Sweden with yields per acre very much higher than in Scotland. Some beet is also grown in Finland.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend agree that experience has shown that farmers in Scotland can, over a considerable period of years, grow beet with yields between 17 and 20 tons per acre and that there is no agricultural reason why the beet sugar industry should not be encouraged and retained in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Equally, my hon. Friend must realise that the actual yield in Scotland—although certain farmers have achieved high yields—is 12·6 tons per acre. For this reason, international comparisons are not necessarily valid.

    European Economic Community
    Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what
    1570
    advice he has received from Scottish local chambers of commerce on their attitude towards entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Aberdeen and Dundee Chambers of Commerce have both written to my right hon. Friend. The Aberdeen Chamber reported the results of a preliminary survey showing a high proportion of individual industrial firms in the North-East in favour of entry. Reservations were expressed regarding the need for safeguards for inshore fishing, about which Dundee also expressed concern.
    Lt.-Col. Mitchell: Is it not a fact that of 170 manufacturing members circulated with the pro forma, only 35 replied? Does my hon. Friend agree that a 20 per cent. reply represents a very small proportion of the total number involved?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Equally, my hon. Friend must remember that these were preliminary results which the Chamber of Commerce thought it worthwhile to publish. If my hon. Friend looks at the survey he will see that those involved in the marketing of agricultural produce and agricultural machinery were particularly in favour of entry.

    Fishing Rights (Hunter Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his study of the Hunter Report on Fishing Rights.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend expects to complete this summer his consideration of the Report. Thereafter, his conclusions and proposals will be published in a White Paper.
    Mr. Dalyell: Hopeless, is it not, Sir?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is the first ray of hope so far from the benches opposite. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has been pushed into silence by this announcement.

    Edinburgh Haymarket Station
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet given his permission for the demolition of Edinburgh Haymarket Station frontage, scheduled as being of architectural and historic interest.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: An application for consent to demolish the building would fall to be considered in the first instance by Edinburgh Corporation, as the local planning authority.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Did my right hon. Friend see the rather ominous reports in the Edinburgh newspapers last week about proposals to erect blocks of 20 or more storeys, which would be totally inappropriate in this area, which I agree needs development? Will he watch this matter with great care to see that the City is not destroyed?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware of reports that have appeared in the Press, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will watch this matter very closely.

    Local Government Finance (Green Paper)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has deferred publication of the Green Paper on Local Government Finance in Scotland until now.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Green Paper was published on 28th July following the Government's review of this subject and in accordance with the forecasts given in previous Parliamentary replies.
    Dr. Mabon: After this long delay the right hon. Gentleman has finally produced a Green Paper which is far less comprehensive than any complaints he made when in opposition. Will he make up for the delay by ensuring that the House has an opportunity to debate the Green Paper before the end of the Session? Will he see that we have an opportunity to debate a glaring omission from the Green Paper—namely, the omission of any comment about the loss of industrial rating due to extensive closures? I am referring in particular to the way in which Clydebank, Dumbarton and other Scottish towns are being sadly affected by the loss of rating, not just for one year and at once but for several years. Do the Government intend to pay transitional grants to help to relieve this burden on these areas?
    Mr. Campbell: We can discuss this matter, but when a debate will take place in Parliament is for my right
    1572
    hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a lot of business to transact before the end of the Session. I will, however, make sure that my right hon. Friend is informed of his request. I take note of the last part of his supplementary question.

    Manpower Use (Government Fiscal Policies)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Economic and Statistical Advisory Section has made of the effect of the Government's fiscal policies on the use of manpower in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: As a result of the advice I receive, I am confident that the fiscal policies being pursued by the Government will be beneficial for the Scottish economy and the use of manpower in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Government policies will produce in the coming winter a level of unemployment in Scotland involving at least 160,000 people, and that although the efforts of the Economic and Statistical Advisory Section are resulting in our having the best analysed economy in Western Europe, the Government's policies are resulting in our having the worst economy?
    Mr. Campbell: I am certainly getting very good service from the new Advisory Section in the Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been having to cope in the last year with a situation which we found on arrival in office.
    Mr. Douglas: With double the unemployment?
    Mr. Campbell: The advice I am receiving is valuable to us in dealing with this very worrying situation of high unemployment.
    Mr. Buchan: If the advice the light hon. Gentleman is receiving is the advice that we are seeing expressed in the results of Government action, it is time he ignored it and got better advice. Is he aware that the present level of unemployment in Scotland represents a loss of 33 million working days to Scottish industry? Does he appreciate that the biggest waste

    1573
    of manpower in Scotland today is for 8,000 shipyard workers on the Clyde who want to work to be told that they may not work? Will he do something to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. Campbell: I dealt with that point in answer to earlier Questions. The advice I receive relates to what should be done in the future. The hon. Gentleman knows that it takes time for measures which are announced, passed through this House and put into effect to become effective in the country. We are up against the problem of time, and on that point I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    Lanarkshire (Official Visit)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next pay a visit to Lanarkshire and Bothwell in particular.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have plans to visit parts of Lanarkshire, but no immediate one for Bothwell.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, though I am disappointed that he is coming. Is he aware that his visit will give the people of Lanarkshire an opportunity to tell him what they think of him and his Government? They will let him know in no uncertain fashion that they are convinced that we are moving back to the hungry 'thirties. Will he at Cabinet level make a sincere and strong plea on behalf of the people of Scotland so that they will at least have some confidence in the Government's determination to do something for them?
    Mr. Campbell: As I said when answering an earlier Question, I saw a deputation a few days ago from the Lanarkshire Development Council. The hon. Gentleman was invited to be present on that occasion, but for some reason he did not attend.
    Later—
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my supplementary relating to Question No. 26, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he had met Lanarkshire Development Council. He led the House to believe that I was a member of that Council or a member of the delegation. I want to
    1574
    make it absolutely clear that it was only a delegation from the Development Council that was met by the Secretary of State and that I was not an accredited delegate. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make that clear to the House.
    Mr. Campbell: I understood that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Council, had been invited to the meeting with the Council. But in view of his explanation, I withdraw what I said.

    Under-Age Drinking
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the figures for each of the first six months of this year of persons convicted of underage drinking; and if he will give comparative figures for the last three years.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The most recent six-month period for which figures are available is that ending in March, 1971. The number of persons under 18 convicted or found guilty of purchasing or consuming excisable liquor in that period was 436. The figures for comparable periods ending in March, 1968, March, 1969, and March, 1970, were 243, 314 and 346, respectively.
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will appreciate that these are very disturbing figures indeed. Will he have discussions with education authorities with a view to devising a system of discussion groups at which the moral dangers to which young people are exposing themselves may be fully explained?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One is naturally concerned by such figures as I have announced. The Scottish Health Education Unit is engaged in a programme which we hope will influence public attitude to drink, which is, of course, the object of the exercise.

    Industry (Attraction to Scotland)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has for presenting the attractions of Scotland to industrialists in the Continent of Europe.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Detailed plans for this purpose are being got ready by the Committee under Lord Taylor of Gryffe

    1575
    which has been established by arrangement with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
    In view of the specially serious employment situation in Scotland and the pressing need for industrial investment, my right hon. Friend has authorised an increase in the grant already provided for carrying out the plans to £70,000 in 1971–72 and to £100,000 in each of the two succeeding years.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is splendid news? I congratulate him and his right hon. Friend on this welcome new initiative.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to to my hon. Friend. This is a very considerable increase in the amount of money available and shows the great importance we attach to advertising outside Scotland the attractions which Scotland holds for industry and investment.
    Mr. Maclennan: In order to put the matter into perspective, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Highlands and Islands Development Board itself planned to spend £98,000 on one project of promotion this autumn but that he and his Government have stopped the Board from doing that? Is he aware that the only traffic there will be between Scotland and Europe will be that of the unemployed in search of jobs elsewhere?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that, as usual, the hon. Member is so carping when financial help is given to this very important task of advertising Scotland elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friend's would only be constructive in letting people abroad, outside Scotland, know how much Scotland had to offer, instead of crying it down, then indeed we could look to a much happier future for Scotland.

    Police Force (Vacancies)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure of shortage of personnel in the Scottish Police Forces.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 30th June last there were 669 vacancies in the regular police force in Scotland, 209 fewer than a year before.
    Sir J. Gilmour: I welcome the increase, but will my hon. Friend take steps to publicise the shortfall in such a way as to bring the police force to full strength in the shortest possible time?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, we are reviewing police force establishments and hope that this will help, but my hon. Friend must appreciate that one of the greatest difficulties is in Glasgow where many of the vacancies occur. But we hope to help through a co-ordinated recruiting campaign this autumn.

    West Freugh (Gunnery Range)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now order a public inquiry into the proposal to move the Shoeburyness Gun Range to West Freugh.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am awaiting a fully detailed application for the development.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the experimental firing I have received 537 communications, all of which have been against this range, and that over 5,000 people have signed petitions against it? Will he order a public inquiry as soon as he possibly can?
    Mr. Campbell: I, too, have received views expressed locally, both in favour of and against this suggestion. The Ministry of Defence has been holding initial consultations with the county council in an attempt to ensure that the proposed development will as far as possible accord with the planning of the area, but as this is a planning matter, or may become one, it would not be right for me to comment on the merits at this stage.

    Great Western Road Expressway (Glasgow)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the Corporation of Glasgow's intentions to widen Great Western Road.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since publishing my decision to confirm the Great Western Road Expressway Compulsory

    1577
    Purchase Order, I have received 84 such representations.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does not the very large number of representations my right hon. Friend has received—and I have received 73—indicate the great concern felt not only about the future of Great Western Road but about the constitutional propriety of Glasgow's trying to undermine my right hon. Friend's position following a public inquiry? Will he reject this attempt? Indeed, in the light of the decision of the Toronto Town Council to abandon a similar expressway, half built, will he re-examine this costly and damaging scheme which can never be a traffic success because of the bottleneck at Kelvingrove Park?
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend will recall that I decided to agree with the recommendation of the reporter who looked into the question. I am now considering the revised proposals which have been submitted by the corporation but I still stick to the decisions which I have made.

  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    National Giro
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to make a statement on the future of the National Giro.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 30th June—[Vol. 820, c. 369.]
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that he has given that same answer at every Question Time this year? Is he still reluctant to give any specific date for the report? Is he further aware that if Giro should close and we go into the Common Market, ours will be the only Post Office in Europe which does not operate a Giro? Furthermore, if the Giro is closed, this will be the only country which has started a Giro and then closed it.
    Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this operation was set up on a basis which has subsequently incurred
    1578
    great losses, and there are considerable problems involved. We have been looking at the issues very carefully, and I assure him that we shall take no longer over this matter than is necessary.
    Mr. Waddington: How many prosecutions for alleged frauds on the Giro are now pending? Is there not now abundant evidence of the most appalling laxity in the operation of the whole system?
    Mr. Chataway: I should need notice before being able to give the figure for which my hon. and learned Friend asks.
    Mr. Richard: I must press the Minister a little on this matter, because he has been looking at it for a long time. Does he not realise that the longer the inquiry goes on, the more unviable will the set-up become? Is he not aware that among those people responsible for the running of the Giro there is considerable dissatisfaction about extent of this delay? Can he not hurry things up?
    Mr. Chataway: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall take no longer over this question than is necessary to get the right answers but, as I say, there are some very complex factors involved.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, in view of the fact that the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress, who represent a substantial part of the British electorate, have declared themselves against Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in terms which are in his possession, whether he will seek to make available to them the same facilities for circulating their publicity material through Post Offices as that afforded for the Government's Common Market Fact-sheets.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not a scandal that the Minister and the Post Office should be aiding and abetting the Government in using the taxpayers' money for party political propaganda? As it has been revealed that whilst cutting services for school children the Government have been spending £25,000 in sending 800,000 Conservatives Party propaganda leaflets,

    1579
    should not some action be taken by the right hon. Gentleman to stop this scandal of party propaganda going out at the taxpayers' expense? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Chafaway: These Factsheets were, as the House knows, published in accordance with past practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Factsheets were produced by the previous Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in connection with the application in 1967. The Post Office has distributed these Factsheets as part of its agency function on behalf of the Government under Section 7 of the Post Office Act, 1969. But I do not believe that it would be appropriate, as this Question suggests, for the Post Office to start distributing literature on behalf of political parties, the C.B.I. or trade unions.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope, with your assistance, to raise the subject tomorrow on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Government Departments (Information)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the official publications which, in the normal way, supply detailed information about Government Departments.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The main official publications containing information about Government Departments are the Official Handbook on Britain 1971, the Annual Estimates, the British Imperial Calendar, and the quarterly publication entitled "Her Majesty's Ministers and Heads of Public Departments". In addition, several Departments publish annual reports.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in none of these publications can one find any full information about the activities of the Central Policy Review Staff? Can he tell the House how many people in the C.P.R.S.—the "think tank" as it is called—are engaged in examining Concorde? Can he also tell us whether it is true that as a result of their examination they have come to the
    1580
    conclusion that each Concorde will cost £21 million, and that a subsidy of £12 million per aircraft will be required.
    Mr. Howell: That is pure speculation. The Central Policy Review Staff is an integral part of the Cabinet Office, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made quite clear the position that the Staff are giving advice to Ministers, and that that is their status.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that although the Prime Minister yesterday stated that the names and salaries of members of the Central Policy Review Staff are announced as and when the appointments are made, these announcements have not yet reached the Library of the House of Commons? Will he arrange for a complete list of the members of the Staff, and their salaries, to be deposited in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Howell: I will certainly look into the matter.

    Fulton Report
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress he is making towards implementing the recommendations of the Fulton Report in regard to the pay and career structure of the scientific classes in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee, in regard to the pay and career structure of the scientific classes of the Civil Service.
    Mr. David Howell: Broad agreement has been reached between the Civil Service Department and the staff association concerned on a merger of the scientific classes up to the principal scientific officer level in accordance with a proposal in the Fulton Report. Pay scales for the new structure will be determined when the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal has reported on the pay of the scientific grades. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Neave: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware of the anger of Government scientists at their apparent down-grading as a result of the

    1581
    Government's recent pay offers to other classes of civil servants? Has not the implementation of the Fulton Report been painfully slow?
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of the concern which my hon. Friend mentions. The pay question is going to arbitration on 12th August and I do not think that it would be right to comment further on it. We are pressing ahead with the merger of the scientific classes and we are hoping that it will produce results.
    Mr. Dalyell: At the appropriate time, would the Government consider the pay research unit's definition of comparability?
    Mr. Howell: The system of fair comparisons which is operated in the pay research unit is well defined and I think that it is fair. The previous Government—and we do not quarrel with this—decided to put the scientific classes on pay research and the outcome is that with which hon. Members are familiar.
    Mr. Dalyell: A jolly bad definition!
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the recommendations inherent in the Fulton Report was that there should be comparable promotion opportunities between various branches of the Civil Service and that what is incensing the scientific grades at the moment is the erosion of this principle? Will he remember that if the outcome of the arbitration is not satisfactory, we shall inevitably have to raise this matter after the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Howell: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that this principle is being eroded. The Fulton proposition, that there should be equal career treatment and promotional structure, is being adhered to and supported by the Government in the implementation of the Fulton Report.
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Fulton recommendations for integration between the scientific classes and the administrative classes. Is it not a fact that, as a result of this differential pay award, integration will be made rather harder than it need be? As the hon. Gentleman has been pressing ahead so well, was this not rather a pity?
    Mr. Howell: I do not think that the pay award will make a difference to the integration outlined by Fulton, or to equal career treatment and promotion prospects. It is a matter of fair comparisons, and they are based on the pay research system. It is only fair that non-industrial civil servants and the scientific classes should have the same treatment in pay matters, and that is what is happening now.
    Dame Irene Ward: May we be assured that the Government will be honest and just to the scientific grades? As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a great deal of trouble. I should like to know which side the Government are on and whether they have done their duty and treated the scientific workers as they ought to be treated.
    Mr. Howell: I did not fully hear my hon. Friend, but if she asked whether the Government were honest and just and doing their duty, the answer is "Yes".

ROLLS-ROYCE (RB211)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. Bishop: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will make a statement on the future of the RB211 engine.
The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Frederick Corfield): In my statement to the House on 10th May about the RB211, I reported that the United States Administration was seeking authority from the United States Congress to guarantee up to $250 millions of additional credits for Lockheed. The House will recall that, because of the heavy commitment which we were prepared to undertake on the engine, we wished to be satisfied that the aircraft project itself could be completed. The United States Congress has passed legislation which would permit the granting of United States Government guarantees on further loans to Lockheed. I am awaiting notification from the United States Administration that it is prepared to give the guarantees for the benefit of Lockheed in an amount of up to $250 millions, which amount the United States Administration considers sufficient to carry out the TriStar project. I am also awaiting from Lockheed confirmation of

1583
orders for the aircraft from existing airline customers.
Provided the notification is received as expected from the United States Administration and from Lockheed, I am happy to say that the RB211 programme will proceed and that some 30,000 or more people at Rolls-Royce and in the company's supplier firms can now expect to continue work on this major engine programme. This has been a major consideration in our deliberations on the subject and I hope this will relieve some of the anxieties of those involved whether as employees, Rolls-Royce suppliers or trade creditors.
Mr. Eadie: But not U.C.S.
Mr. Corfield: Many of those who have in the last few months suffered serious anxiety have at the same time had to exert great efforts to keep alive the prospect of a solution. I wish to record my appreciation of those efforts.
Rolls-Royce will still have work to do in developing the engines for the TriStar. But we shall all be set on a course aimed at completing the project. We hope that the aircraft will enter into service with many world airlines who will recognise its merits and the House will, I am sure, wish the project every success.
Mr. Bishop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the cliff-hanging months the whole House will share his pleasure at such a statement being made and express its own appreciation of the co-operation of the United States Parliament in saving not only 30,000 British jobs but many hundreds of thousands of American jobs? Secondly, following the disclosures this morning, will he explain why it took the Government nine months before they reluctantly and timidly came forward to nationalise Rolls-Royce following the failure of private enterprise? Thirdly, will he explain what safeguards will be taken following the sacking of I.R.C., which acted as a watchdog, to ensure the continued viability of Rolls-Royce and other aero firms? Finally, may I congratulate him on choosing an Oral Question to make a statement today so that he might then be questioned?
Mr. Corfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his remarks. First,
1584
the nationalisation, if that is the right word, was announced at the same time as the collapse of Rolls-Royce, not nine months after. I have made it clear on many occasions that, whatever other merits I.R.C. may have had, it was not the ideal organisation for the watchdog capacity which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So that the House may fully understand the background and responsibilities in this whole difficult matter, will my right hon. Friend now publish the 1969 I.R.C. report which, thanks to the diligence of the Sub-Committee, we now know to be in the files of my right hon. Friend, as the arguments against publication are no longer valid?
Mr. Corfield: I could not agree about those arguments being no longer valid. Publication would undermine the confidentiality of other I.R.C. reports. I have now seen the report myself and I am satisfied that there are still people and projects which could be damaged by its publication.
Mr. Benn: May I congratulate the Government most sincerely on the success of their negotiations which have been made possible by the guarantees voted on behalf of American taxpayers by Congress to sustain Lockheeds, which would otherwise not have been viable? This is the first occasion on which Congress has done such a thing.
May I also congratulate the Government on their decision to make further sums of public money available to the nationalised Rolls-Royce to allow it to complete the RB211, on which thousands of jobs in Derby and elsewhere depend? May I ask him to confirm that by concluding this agreement the Government are taking a tremendous risk with public money and that the outcome will depend on many factors outside their control, including the continued viability of Lockheeds?
We wish the Government success in their venture in support of a British industry and in hoping for major orders for this airbus from, among others, B.E.A.
Mr. Corfield: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is relevant to remember that a substantial contribution is being made in this connection

1585
by the British taxpayer. We all accept that projects of this sort involve risk, particularly when one is dealing, as one unfortunately has to deal in this case, with a firm whose financial soundness is in question.
Mr. Rost: In welcoming this statement, which will come as a great relief to many thousands of my constituents in and around Derby, may I ask the Minister, now that some of the juicier bits appear to have leaked out from the I.R.C. confidential report about Rolls-Royce, urgently to consider publishing the Government's White Paper on the Rolls-Royce saga, because many of my constituents may well be under suspicion and it would be grossly unfair to them that the sort of rumours being spread about the responsibility for the collapse of Rolls-Royce should reflect unfairly on innocent parties?
Mr. Albu: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider the use of the words "leaked out" with regard to evidence given to a Select Committee of this House?
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider the matter and deliberate upon it, but not immediately. I would like to examine all of the circumstances.
Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I could first say to my hon. Friend that, if his definition of "juicier bits" roughly accords with mine, then I can find very little confirmation of such bits in the report. I am prepared to publish the summary which was officially made available to the previous Government and to myself. I would ask the House to bear in mind that there is a departmental inquiry taking place and I have made it clear in the House that I am perfectly prepared to make the whole report available to it.
Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while my constituents in Derby warmly welcome the vote in Congress, they are only too well aware that the whole decision eventually hung upon the vote of a Kentucky senator? Will he now tell the House, since production on the RB211 is to go ahead, firstly, that there will be no further redundancies in the Derby engine division and, secondly, that some scheme will now be brought forward to allow worker shareholders to transfer at par to the new company
1586
whose profitability and viability has been assured?
Mr. Corfield: I am sure we are all grateful to the Kentucky senator, but in both of our systems a majority of one is sufficient. As to the redundancies, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figures I gave in my statement were taken from the figures supplied to me by Rolls-Royce of the people actually employed on this project. Obviously, one cannot give an absolute guarantee in projects of this sort that there may not be changes of mind on the part of customers or major snags. I am immensely optimistic, but I am in no position to give that guarantee.
Mr. Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend say how it is that the I.R.C. came to present a report to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) which said that millions of pounds would be needed by Rolls-Royce which in its view could not be a viable entity, and yet the right hon. Gentleman took no action to set this right? How can he appear in this House on this subject in a white sheet?
Mr. Corfield: With due respect, the report does not make those comments. I will publish the summary, in which it is quite clear, as it was certainly clear in the subsequent letter received from Sir Joseph Lockwood, that the I.R.C. did consider that its proposals would make Rolls-Royce viable.
Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate a public inquiry into the sale of Rolls-Royce shares by individuals, not excluding members of the Board, who stood to gain by inside knowledge of the company's situation which was withheld from the Government of the day?
Mr. Corfield: I have already reminded the House that there is a departmental inquiry in progress.
Mr. Faulds: A public inquiry. This may come up again.
Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member is always coming up again.
Would my right hon. Friend convey to all those who took part in the difficult negotiations the appreciation of the hon. Members on both sides—which we owe to him, too? Will he also convey to

1587
them our gratification that the outcome of this affair puts the lie to stupid accusations which have come from certain people that this Government had sought to sabotage Rolls-Royce? Would he confirm that the full text of the I.R.C. document will be made available to the Board of Trade inquiry and that those who have commented on it will be invited to give evidence?
Mr. Corfield: To the first three questions of my hon. Friend I can say "Yes". To his latter comments I shall have to give some consideration.
Mr. Dalyell: Amid the euphoria, is this not the occasion to go along to the Treasury Solicitor and to those who advised the Attorney-General and discuss seriously the advice given to successive Governments in the case of Beagle and Rolls-Royce as to whether it was really necessary to put these firms into the hands of the Official Receiver at all? Is it true that Governments have to do this if they are not to incur the accumulated debts of firms in this position? This is a fairly serious question for the legislative committee of the Cabinet, and this is the time to ask it.
Mr. Corfield: This is a serious question on which successive Governments have taken the best legal advice available. The legal advice taken confirms, with no doubt at all, that the interpretation of the law was as I have put forward in the House.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that on this side of the House we are grateful for his firm reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) which put the matter into proper perspective? Will he also accept that we are glad that the vote in the United States Senate has gone the way it has—I thought it was a senator from Montana rather than Kentucky who had the decisive vote; but in any vote with a majority of one any of the 49 can be regarded as being decisive. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that as a result of their policies the Government are extremely lucky, through a vote of 49 to 48 in the United States Senate, not to be presented with a further massive increase of unemployment and the collapse of a major industrial project? Will they endeavour so to
1588
conduct matters in future that they are not so dependent on chance votes outside this House?
Mr. Corfield: Of course we are grateful, but for the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Chancellor of the Exchequer, to come forward and even imply that we should go ahead with an international project when there is grave doubt that the only reasonable market for this engine, namely this aircraft, will be built, astonishes me.
Later—
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I wished to put a question to the Minister for Aerospace, but I was not called. There is a Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency. I was the only Member with such a factory in his constituency who was not called—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and who, as far as I know, rose. I was not called on the last occasion that the Minister made a statement. As this matter is important to Northern Ireland, I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about how I can be called when a matter affecting hundreds and hundreds of workers comes before the House.
Mr. Speaker: I shall not take the hon. Member's remarks as a reflection on the Chair. However, many hon. Members' constituents are affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Rolls-Royce decision. The Chair has to be the guardian of the time of the House, and it is not possible to call every hon. Member whose constituents are affected, which I very much regret.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to Oral Question No. 58 on today's Order Paper. I put this Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland:
"To asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a special study of unemployment problems in Lanarkshire."
The Secretary of State for Scotland transferred this Question to the Secretary of State for Employment, who has no departmental responsibility for the Scottish Development Department. I seek your guidance as to what an hon. Member

1589
can do when a Minister wrongly transfers a Question to another Minister who has no responsibility for the subject referred to in the Question. May I also ask your guidance as to how I can establish, if the Secretary of State for Scotland has lost control of the Scottish Development Department, who now controls it?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice that he would raise this question. The matter of the transfer of Questions from one Department to another is not a matter for Chair. I am sure that what the hon. Member has said will have been noted.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) about his Question No. 58. I accept that any Minister can answer for any Department. What I cannot understand is how it is possible for another Minister to instruct a Department over which he has no control.
Mr. Speaker: Again, that may be a very mysterious process, but it is not a matter for the Chair. These matters must be investigated by others means—there are the usual channels, and so on. It is not for the Chair to rule on the matter of the transfer of Questions.
Mr. Buchan: Further to the point of order. I recognise that this is not a matter under your instruction, as it were, Mr. Speaker, but it is very serious. It would seem that responsibility for the Scottish Development Department has been placed with another Minister. I realise that you cannot issue instructions, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the Leader of the House, who is present, had better explain to us the significance of what has happened concerning Question No. 58, which asks
"… the Secretary of State for Employment if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a special study of unemployment problems in Lanarkshire."
Would you tell us whether there has been a transfer of responsibility?
Mr. Speaker: I could not possibly allow the Leader of the House to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. I allowed hon. Members to raise these matters because I realise that they are concerned about them very much. I said on a
1590
previous occasion that this problem of the transfer of questions has been constantly raised during the 26 years that I have been a Member of the House. It needs consideration, but I am sure that the Chair is not the proper body to consider it. It must be considered through the usual channels to ensure that reasonable methods are adopted for handling what has always been an awkward matter.

PROBATION SERVICE
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deteriorating situation in the probation service and the urgent need for an immediate and adequate pay settlement."
The rising crime rate and the increasing overcrowding in penal institutions has given, and is giving, cause for national concern, and the Government have recognised this in stating their plans to reorganise the penal system. Those plans are based on the expansion of the probation service from its present strength of 3,400 to 4,700 by 1975. Yet net gains in personnel have been declining over the past three years and it is doubtful whether the service can even meet its present commitments.
It is becoming increasingly difficult, due to the inadequate salaries and excessive work loads of probation officers, for the service to attract professionally-trained recruits, especially when it faces direct competition for trained personnel from the new local authority social work departments which are able to offer qualified personnel up to £400 more per annum than they could be offered by the probation service.
The matter is of extreme urgency, for unless an adequate pay settlement is offered in the near future—and I stress "in the near future"—an increasing number of probation officers may well leave the service, particularly the younger, university-trained officers, and this will severely dilute the standards of service and also make it impossible to implement the proposed advances in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) asks for

1591
leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deteriorating situation in the probation service and the urgent need for an immediate and adequate pay settlement."
I have considered this matter, of which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice. I have also heard what he had to say. I think that the House will agree that he has made his point. However, under Standing Order No. 9, it is for the Chair to decide whether to submit his application to the House. I am afraid that I cannot submit it to the House.

RIVER BOATS (NOISE)
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege of which I have given you notice, but if you decide that there is a better way of dealing with it, then I shall gladly accept your advice.
I refer to what started as a nuisance but which has now become an impediment to the work of the House, particularly in its Committees, namely, the widespread use of loudspeakers by vessels going up and down the River Thames adjacent to the House. It has now
1592
reached the extent to which witnesses giving evidence before Select Committees cannot be heard, and the shorthand writers, who have the difficult job of recording what is said, have great difficulty in taking it down. I do not think I need elaborate by giving examples because I am sure that all hon. Members, including yourself, Sir, are familiar with them. I should welcome any action which you can take, Mr. Speaker, to abate this nuisance to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would raise this matter. As the occupant for a time of a "tied cottage" facing the river and adjacent to portions of the Palace of Westminster which Members of Her Majesty's Commons use for their lawful purposes, I am very much aware of the nuisance. But I am very doubtful whether it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, I hope that it will not be persisted in as a matter of privilege.
The House, I am led to believe, is likely to rise tomorrow. By the time that it resumes its sittings the Thames boating season will, I think, be over. Perhaps the matter could be considered during the winter through a variety of channels. If the nuisance is persisted in next summer or earlier when the House is sitting, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise the matter again.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords Amendments considered.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 42

      DEFINITIONS RELATING TO BARGAINING STRUCTURE
      Lords Amendment: No. 74, in page 32, line 32, leave out from "employers" to end of line 34 and insert:
      "in relation to whom collective bargaining, in respect of such matters as are not dealt with under more extensive bargaining arrangements, is, or could appropriately be, carried on by an organisation of workers or a joint negotiating panel, or partly by an organisation of workers and partly by a joint negotiating panel".
      3.59 p.m.
      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.
      It may be for the convenience of the House if with this Lords Amendment we also consider Lords Amendments:
      No. 75, in page 33, line 2, at end insert:
      "except in respect of matters which are dealt with under more extensive bargaining arrangements";
      No. 77, in page 33, line 8, leave out "and";
      No. 78, in page 33, line 11, at end insert:
      "and
      (f) "more extensive bargaining arrangements", in relation to any particular employees or descriptions of employees of an employer, or of two or more associated employers, means arrangements for collective bargaining in respect of matters common to those employees or descriptions of employees and to other employees or descriptions of employees, whether of the same employer or employers or of one or more different employers";
      No. 92, in page 38, line 8, at end insert:
      "(8) Where the Commission determine, in making a report under this section, to recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiation panel as sole
      1594
      bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, and it appears to the Commission that there are in existence more extensive bargaining arrangements which will be applicable to the employees comprised or to be comprised in that bargaining unit, the recommendation—

      (a) may specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements in question, and

      (b) may be made subject to the reservation that the organisation or panel, at any time when it is recognised as sole bargaining agent in pursuance of the recommendation, shall not have exclusive negotiating rights in respect of matters which are at that time being dealt with under the specified arrangements or which are then the subject of a collective agreement negotiated under those arrangements."

      No. 93, in page 38, line 10, after "recommended" insert:
      "(with or without a reservation under subsection (8) of that section)";
      No. 100, in page 39, line 17, at end insert:
      "(1A) If the recommendation of the Commission is subject to a reservation under section 46(8) of this Act, the order of the Industrial Court shall specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements, as specified in that recommendation, and shall be made subject to the like reservation."
      I have had it suggested to me that it might also be convenient if the Opposition's Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 92, to leave out from 'question' to end of Amendment, were also to form part of the same debate. I hope that that will perhaps be for the convenience of the House.
      The purpose of these Lords Amendments is to deal with an important question which we believe we had adequately covered in the original drafting of the Bill but which, we find subsequently, we have not. The point is this. The bargaining agent provisions of the Bill are limited to single employers, or employers associated only in the financial sense, but in practice over wide areas of industry it is exceptional for all the terms and conditions of a group of employees comprised in the bargaining unit to be negotiated by the agent for that unit. For example, in the typical engineering firm the basic rates of workers in that group, and other terms and conditions of employment, are customarily negotiated nationally between the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions, but these nationally agreed terms are almost invariably supplemented at company level by further agreements which provide for payments

      1595
      above the basic rates and also for many other things as well. Clearly, therefore, it seems to us that the bargaining agent provisions ought to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the situation where there may be bargaining at different levels in respect of a particular group of employees.
      As I said at the outset, we had thought this was covered in the Bill as drafted, because the C.I.R. has power under Clause 46(7) to make its recommendations subject to any conditions which it thinks fit, and we thought that that covered the point I have just made. We thought that where a satisfactory national arrangement for negotiating terms and conditions of a group of employees was the subject of a recommendation the C.I.R. under that subsection could make it a condition, if it thought fit, that the recommended bargaining agent should accept that it had no negotiating rights in respect of those terms and conditions which were negotiated nationally.
      This, as I say, we find is not the interpretation which we believe the courts would put on the Clause in the Bill as drafted originally, and we are now advised that we should make Amendments, and that is what we are doing, so that we can adequately cover this question of bargaining at different levels.
      The problem arises primarily because of the tightness of the existing definition in Clause 42. Thus, although the Lords Amendments which we are now discussing are fairly extensive, they really do no more than make explicit what we thought hitherto was implicit in the provisions.
      The Lords Amendments basically do two things. First of all, Amendments No. 74 and No. 75 make some necessary modifications to the definition of "bargaining unit" and "sole bargaining agent" in Clause 42.
      Amendment No. 78 provides a new and I think comprehensive definition of "more extensive bargaining arrangements". Amendments of the existing definitions are necessary to make it clear that the phrase "bargaining unit" relates in the case of a particular group of employees to those terms and conditions of their employment which are not the subject of negotiations in more extensive bargaining arrangements such as national or company-wide negotiations,
      1596
      and also to make it clear that the sole bargaining agent has no negotiating rights in respect of matters which are dealt with under the more extensive bargaining arrangements.
      The second thing which the Amendments do is to enable the Commission on Industrial Relations to do what, as I have already said, we thought it had already the power to do under Clause 46(7). Amendment No. 92 inserts a new subsection into Clause 46 empowering the Commission on Industrial Relations to make its recommendations subject to reservation that the recommended bargaining agent shall not have exclusive negotiating rights in respect of matters which are dealt with under the more extensive bargaining arrangements.
      I want to make it clear that this does not mean that everywhere the C.I.R. finds that there are these more extensive bargaining arrangements in existence it will be compelled to recommend that the sole bargaining agent would have to be subject to reservation. The new subsection will give the C.I.R. discretion—and I think it is right—to decide whether or not more extensive bargaining arrangements should be accorded priority over the negotiating rights of the recommended agent in an individual company or bargaining unit in the discussions.
      That is important, and needs stressing. We are not wanting to tie the hands of the C.I.R. We are wanting to loosen its hands. It was the Bill as originally drafted which tied its hands, making it impossible for it to make such a reservation. We are making it possible for the Commission to make reservations, but not compelling it to do so.
      I have to deal with two small consequential Amendments made necessary because of the changes. First of all, it is the purpose of Amendment No. 93 to make reference in Clause 47 to the possibility of this reservation by the C.I.R. under the new subsection to be inserted in Clause 46. Secondly, the new subsection (1A), which is contained in Amendment No. 100 and which is to be inserted into Clause 48 will require the Industrial Court, when it makes an order enforcing a C.I.R. recommendation, to specify in the order the more extensive bargaining arrangements.
      These, then, are the purposes of these Amendments, the central purpose of

      1597
      which is to give the C.I.R. discretionary power where it thinks it appropriate—but only where it is appropriate—to protest the primacy of negotiations at the higher level, and it seems to us sensible and in line with traditional British industrial relations practice.
      I am surprised that the Opposition, in the Amendment they have put down to Lords Amendment No. 92, should apparently be seeking to reject it. Of course, it is true that the Donovan Commission recommended extension of company and plant bargaining, and I certainly accept that. All I would say to balance it is that national level bargaining is accepted on the side of both trade unions and managements, and where it is appropriate it has proved its value over a long period and, I believe, will retain its value even in modern conditions. Where it fails, and where, indeed, it has done seriously in some areas, is where a national body attempts to settle in a standardised national form terms and conditions which simply are not appropriate in the context of varying local conditions, and because they are not appropriate to local conditions they are not acceptable, and therefore, do not carry support and authority and acceptance.
      Some national bargaining wrongly attempts to do too much—this is what the last few years have shown in some areas—and it is much better that it should be replaced by good, orderly, stable local bargaining at company and plant level. There is nothing in these Amendments which would deny or hold back the movement towards more effective company and plant bargaining.
      Mr. Stanley Orine: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that national bargaining tends to set minimum standards? I recall that when I was in the engineering industry, in 1963 the basic rate for a skilled worker was only £10 12s. whereas the average earnings were over £25 a week. In other words, the national bargaining was out of all relation to what was actually happening.
      Mr. Carr: I accept that point. I am not standing here as the great champion of national bargaining as it has often been practised. I welcomed at the time, and still welcome, the importance which
      1598
      the Donovan Commission gave to the recognition of the growth of local bargaining which had taken place in its recommendation that this should be further extended. I am not going back on that view in any way. Nor do I believe that these Amendments would hold up such a process.
      What I am saying is that because we have in the light of experience, some of it painful, discovered and become increasingly aware of some failings in our traditional system of national bargaining, it would be a mistake to throw the whole thing out of the window as though the whole concept of no value. There was and still is value in it—value from industry to industry and perhaps from time to time. All we are saying in these Amendments is that where the C.I.R. finds that the national bargaining for the setting of minima in pay or conditions is working well and is acceptable to both unions and management, it is sensible that it should be able to protect that national bargaining and limit local bargaining to the things which the national bargaining cannot effectively do. Equally of course where it looks into a case and finds that national bargaining is ineffective, it will be free to say so and to make clear that in future these matters ought to be dealt with at local level.
      I believe that these Amendments provide the necessary flexibility which will encourage the development of local bargaining on a sound basis while protecting, where appropriate, and where it is wished for by both sides, the presence of national bargaining for certain issues where it is going on effectively. I am surprised that the Opposition should seek to reject this change—all the more so because their spokesmen in another place took a totally different view.
      For example, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in accepting these Amendments for the Opposition in another place, felt that they did bring something to the Clause which was formerly missing. He went on to say that he could not pretend that he had discovered this missing link for himself but felt that he should have done and wished that he had done. He added that, since it had now been discovered, he welcomed the Amendments and felt that they would improve the present arrangements. That was the view of the Opposition, strongly expressed

      1599
      in another place—so much so that, without further debate, after Lord Champion's statement the Amendments were accepted without a Division. I hope now that the whole House of Commons, and the Opposition in particular, will consider these Amendments in the spirit in which I have explained them and will feel that they do improve an area of the Bill which I think is probably one of those which, over the years, can be of most value in developing more sensible bargaining structure in industry.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I remind the House, lest some doubt should creep in, that included in this long string of Lords Amendments is No. 92, to which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and some of our hon. Friends have put down an Amendment, which is also for discussion now.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Having read the proceedings in another place, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not open his remarks in the same frank way that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, presented these Amendments in another place. Lord Drumalbyn's speech was in contradistinction to the right hon. Gentleman's today. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Government are presenting the Amendments as a result of further careful and deliberate consideration. In fact, the origin of the Amendments lies with the representations made by the employers' associations—in particular, the Engineering Employers' Federation—which, right from the publication of the Consultative Document last year, have repeatedly expressed their concern, both in private and public, about the licence that would be given under his proposals to people at shop floor level in the pursuit of productivity bargains and so on which would apply in the event of industry-wide agreements.
      One of our initial points of concern, which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with because we have referred to it so often, relates to the exercise by the C.I.R. of certain of these powers which, in this state, are derived via the N.I.R.C. We have repeatedly expressed our objections to the C.I.R. being yoked
      1600
      to that court. I shall not labour the point again, because I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt about the depth and strength of those objections or about our concern that the C.I.R. should be exercising any power at all while it continues to be so unrepresentative of industry as a whole.
      Mr. Carr: Whose fault is that?
      Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the deliberate decision of the T.U.C. to abstain from participation in this work. He has made it clear that he has declared war on the trade unions.
      Mr. Carr: Nonsense!
      Mr. Walker: The T.U.C. is quite entitled to say that, whereas in its mature years it was accepted as almost the fourth estate of the Realm—it had become an integral part of the State—in 1970 it found itself confronted by a hostile State. Can anyone complain if it decides that it will then contract out? It surprises me that the T.U.C. has limited its contracting out of State functions to this action.
      Mr. Carr: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would say if, for example, the C.B.I. or individual companies refused to co-operate in the law of the land, passed by a democratic Parliament on an issue which had been included in the Labour Party manifesto. Would not he condemn the C.B.I. and the companies for their action?
      Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks at Lord Cromer and the gentlemen of the City. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly drawn attention to the difficulties created for the Labour Government by the hostility of the leaders of the class which right hon. and hon. Members opposite represent. Let us hear no more nonsense and hypocrisy about that from the right hon. Gentleman. These Amendments are a straight concession to the employers' associations and put on one side the basic Donovan thesis about the decentralisation of collective bargaining and the unrealities of the formal industry-wide system.
      I thought the Royal Commission's Report had shattered once and for all the illusion in which the right hon. Gentleman apparently still persists about the

      1601
      effectiveness of industry-wide agreements. The Commission said:
      "… the assumptions of the formal system still exert a powerful influence over men's minds and prevent the informal system from developing into an effective and orderly method of regulation".
      It is sad that the right hon. Gentleman has succumbed to the influence of the employers' federations rather than to the view of the Royal Commission.
      Mr. Carr: No.
      Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman might not like to hear it, but we must have the truth.
      Mr. Carr: Nonsense.
      Mr. Walker: Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he is in these Amendments aligning himself with the employers' federations. This is the effect of these Amendments. He is associating himself with those who cling pathetically to the illusions of the past and who want to hang on to the pretences of a discredited and obsolete system. I thought the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the Royal Commission's Report—indeed I recall the welcome he gave to it—and it is a matter of regret that he now seems to be washing his hands of it.
      The informal and fragmented reality of factory bargaining cannot be coordinated into a coherent and rational system by attempting to revert to the past. The growth of plant bargaining in recent years has been an explicit recognition of this fact.
      Mr. Carr: Did the hon. Gentleman not hear me say when I moved the Amendment that I am in favour of the extension of plant bargaining? Secondly, is he really saying on behalf of his party that he is opposed to all national bargaining? Is this the point of view of the trade union movement? I do not think it is—any more than it was the view of the Labour Party in another place.
      Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentle man must recognise that the views put forward on these benches are the views of the Parliamentary Labour Party, not necessarily the view of the trade unions. We claim that because we stand with the trade union movement, we naturally reflect in this House the aims and aspirations of the trade unions and their members,
      1602
      because we are one and the same, we are part of the same body.
      I am accusing the Secretary of State of channelling the forces of change in the wrong direction. We recognise that industry-wide agreements still have some influence and still exist, but they exist in a period of change. There are those who, like the Royal Commission, recognise the forces of change and who can see the direction in which we ought to go; they have put up signposts in that direction. This is a direction in which my right hon. Friends, the Labour Party and I seek, to go. The right hon. Gentleman is turning the signposts round or is turning a blind eye to them. Instead, he has chosen to acquiesce in the demands of the industrial Canutes, the dinosaurs, in an attempt to preserve an unreal and meaningless status quo. It cannot be done. The pretence of the old, centralised bargaining system, based on national negotiations covering a whole industry, has been overtaken by the reality of more meaningful negotiations at factory level.
      There is one other point of concern, which is the principal reason that we have tabled our Amendments. This arises directly out of the new subsection (8)(b). It may be that we have misunderstood the situation. It is a complex subject and I am glad that at times we have been given legal guidance by the Solicitor-General. I gather that he is a hieroglyphist in the British Museum—if that is the right word for one who deciphers mysteries—but unfortunately there are not enough Solicitors-General to go round to advise all the shop stewards who will have to follow these provisions. It seems to me that subsection (8)(b) could go beyond the effect I have just been describing. Although it makes provision for the C.I.R. in determining what sole bargaining unit to take into account, the new subsection may give the opportunity to limit the sole bargaining unit in an establishment which falls outside.
      Our fear and anxiety is that this power could be used to have a precisely opposite effect from what we should wish to see. In other words, a particular bargaining situation may lead to those seeking to be the sole bargaining agents not being given the power to negotiate.

      1603
      They would not have the power to raise terms and conditions to a higher level than that which prevails in industry generally.
      If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to assure us that this will not be the effect—and I am not saying that this necessarily will be the right hon. Gentleman's intention—then I am afraid we shall have to look carefully at whether we will press the Opposition Amendment to a vote.
      Mr. R. Carr: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I was taken aback for a moment that no other hon. Member opposite wishes to say anything on these Amendments, [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you complaining about?"] I am not complaining. I was merely expecting hon. Members to repeat their well-known speeches on this and other subjects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]
      I was a little astonished at parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). He began by accusing me of lack of frankness in not saying that the Engineering Employers Federation and other employers federations have pressed this point. There is no question of lack of frankness. This is well-known public knowledge. I am not concealing anything since this is well known to anybody who takes an active interest in the subject. The engineering employers and other employers have made no secret of their concern about the value of national bargaining in certain areas. I received representations from various employers and various employers' associations. It is not my fault if the trade unions had nothing to say one way or the other to me on this subject. They could have come along, but did not.
      I suspect, however, that many trade unions do not share the wholehearted enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman, and apparently of the Official Opposition, for chucking all national bargaining out of the window. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, this was the impression given by the hon. Gentleman, with unusual vehemence. I will look at his words, and perhaps when I see them in cold print that impression will not be so great, and indeed I hope that is so. Certainly my impression was as I have indicated it. What in fact I said in moving the Amendments was that there is no desire to stop the
      1604
      move towards more and more effective, orderly and stable local bargaining. We completely support the Royal Commission's analysis in this respect.
      But we believe—and I think that many people on both sides of industry believe-that within its limits our traditional national bargaining system, well tried and well valued by trade unions as much as by employers, has a part to play. It may be a different part to play from that we have seen in the past, it may be a lesser part, but in our view it would be wrong so to frame this law about bargaining agents that the C.I.R. was not permitted to allow it to play the part which both sides of industry might wish it to play and which, if allowed, would be to the benefit of the whole of industry, workers as much as management, and of the country as a whole. That, therefore, is the intention.
      4.30 p.m.
      At the very end of his speech, the hon. Member for Doncaster asked a specific question. I confess that I should have appreciated the opportunity afforded by a speech from the Opposition benches of a few moments' grace during which I could have checked the technicalities of the question, but I shall answer him in this way. I assure him that it is not the intention, as I think he accepts, that the Amendment should have the effect which he suggested; and I do not believe that it will do so.
      We have to realise that it is inherent in our whole system, and inherent in the concept of the C.I.R. approach, whether as envisaged originally by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her hon. Friends or as now extended within the concept of the present Bill, that we do not tie the hands of the C.I.R. We consider, on balance, that, rather than tie the hands of the C.I.R. too closely, we ought to set up an industrially sophisticated body and leave it to use its common sense in the circumstances and on the merits of each individual case. We do not think it right to tie its hands in detail by statute as to what it can and cannot do. That is the sense of the Amendment. All these Amendments give the C.I.R. more discretion rather than less.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that the C.I.R. could not do what he suggests. I have had advice, although, obviously, I have not had a chance to discuss it.

      1605
      While I have been speaking, I have received definite advice from advisers whom I trust, just as I know the hon. Gentleman trusted them in the past, that the C.I.R. could not do what the hon. Gentleman fears. It is very definitely not our intention that it should be able to do it, and I think I can now add that it will not be able to do it. I think it right that we should give the C.I.R. the discretion which we propose.
      I accept that feelings run strong about the Bill, but I hope that all of us will realise that the C.I.R. is there as an industrially sophisticated body, and I regret the present attitude of the trade unions to it. I shall do my best to appoint to that body people of genuine professional skill and knowledge, and recognised as such by all sides of industry. There will remain seats vacant for people from the trade union movement if and when they feel able to participate in it.
      I very much hope that the trade unions, whatever view they may take about the Bill and whatever hopes they may have that at some date there may come another Government who will repeal it, will realise that, while the Bill is on the Statute Book, it will be not just in the national interest but in the interests of the trade unions and their members that they should participate in these bodies. They will be welcome. The places will be there for them. Even if the Bill provides a context which they sincerely do not like, I hope that all of us will do what we can to encourage them to participate, for I believe that it will be to their benefit, and not just to the country's benefit, that they should do so.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman invited a contribution or two from our back benches, so I put this point to him now. It is his conception of the C.I.R. which has mucked the thing up. The central idea of a body of this kind brought together has been supported by a good many of us on this side, but in the situation created by the Secretary of State there is unanimous opposition from the entire officialdom of the trade union movement—from the extremities of the Left to the extremities of the Right—to the repressive aspect of the set of circumstances which he has created. It is his concept which has mucked the whole
      1606
      idea up, yet he seems so disappointed about it.
      Mr. Carr: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise; nor do I believe that events will prove his suggestion right. I am sure that events will prove, even if I am not absolutely right, that I am more right in my hopes than he is in his fears. But I still say to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, even in the framework of this legislation which they so deeply dislike, the C.I.R. itself is given no direct powers. This is deliberate. I still hope that the vast majority of cases going to the C.I.R. will go through the normal voluntary machinery. That is my hope and my intention. Only rarely, I believe, will the C.I.R. deal with a case which has to go to it through lack of voluntary procedure and willingness via the channels of the National Industrial Relations Court. I hope that those will be but rare cases, but even in those rare cases—this has been deliberately done—the C.I.R. will be denied any teeth, any powers of compulsion. It is still a body of inquiry, report and persuasion, centred very much in the voluntary field.
      I hope that, as the months go by, this will come to be realised and that distinguished members from the trade union movement will feel able to serve on it without in any way forgoing their basic dislike and disapproval of the Bill and their hopes that one day it will be repealed.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is it not plain that a wholly moderate and reasonable trade unionist like Mr. George Woodcock would never have resigned the chairmanship, a job he loves, if he had not been totally convinced by his experience of the working of the C.I.R. that the Bill would damage that work?
      Mr. Carr: That was not the reason which Mr. George Woodcock gave. Hon. Members on both sides who wish to know his views ought to turn to the actual words which Mr. Woodcock used. Naturally, I have not got them with me at the moment, so I am speaking from recollection, just as the right hon. Lady must be, but my recollection is that, while making clear that he did not support the Bill—he has always made that clear—he made clear also that it was not because of the Bill that he felt he must resign

      1607
      from the C.I.R. but because of the decision of the T.U.C. in respect of it.
      Mr. John Prescott: Because of the Bill.
      Mr. Carr: But it was indirect as far as Mr. Woodcock was concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is nit-picking."] If it be nit-picking, hon. Members are accusing Mr. Woodcock of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Woodcock made that clear, and I suggest that hon. Members should read the terms of his statement. He made clear that it was because of the attitude of the T.U.C. not because the Bill itself made the task of the C.I.R. impossible, that he resigned.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman seemed disappointed that we did not give him the benefit of our knowledge of these matters. But this is a huge issue—we all realise how big it is—and the Amendments which he has put to us run in a very narrow groove compared with the magnitude of the subject matter. We do not want to open up the whole subject now. Indeed, you would probably rule us out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we went into the wider aspects of it.
      When the right hon. Gentleman merely generalises on whether there should be national or local bargaining, he does not do justice to the subject. I know of industries in which there never will be local bargaining no matter what the law says. I know of industries in which, in the course of the next few years, national bargaining will cease to exist. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman puts it in the black and white context, he is not doing justice to a huge issue.
      I can understand the suspicions and anxieties which have been aroused in my hon. Friends by certain advances by the Engineering Employers Federation. It seems that, in the engineering industry, which to my knowledge has had local bargaining for the last 40 years, it is putting the clock back if those same employers are now emphasising the need to keep national bargaining as the premier structure within that industry. The preservation of national bargaining, as it has been preserved, has done a lot of harm, especially in some sections of engineering which are causing the most trouble.
      1608
      I can look back a long way on these matters. For instance, I believe that the problems in the motor car industry stem from the fact that it tried to adapt itself to national bargaining, which has nothing to do with the production of motor cars. We know, especially in engineering, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) said, national bargaining has been looked upon as the way to establish minimum basics.
      Mr. Orme: Holidays.
      Mr. Lee: But this presupposes that there will be superimposed a payment by results system. I have always felt that where we went wrong in the car industry was in trying to add to a pretty low basic rate a payment by results system. This is nonsense, as the Minister will probably agree. It was because we were all hog-tied by the national bargaining system that many of the troubles which we have since experienced in that one industry have come about.
      I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to appreciate that he would not wish to preserve a national structure which presupposed that it went wrong locally the moment we attempted to apply it. It is sad to see any kind of industry in which that can happen being limited in its ability to go forward to a negotiation which can get rid of much of the structure which has caused these problems in the past.
      I thought how remarkable it was that Donovan was so out of date. We appear to be told that it is a good thing to have local bargaining. Some of us were indulging in factory bargaining 30 years ago, long before the issue became a question whether it should be done nationally or locally. I was on national committees looking after national bargaining at the same time as I was conducting factory negotiations which, in many ways, superseded national bargaining.
      If the right hon. Gentleman is to take this to the logical point of saying that, for instance, in the coal mining industry we want now to recreate district bargaining, he will have a holocaust on his hands. Years ago, the question of district bargaining in the coal mining industry was the source of a huge number of strikes. I have no authority to speak for the union concerned, but I am sure that it would not accept any idea of returning

      1609
      to the district bargaining which it hated so much. Who could believe that, for example, in the railway industry, there could be local bargaining? The whole thing just would not stand up.
      The problem facing the right hon. Gentleman is that it is not possible in legislation to lay down a structure which is applicable to all these varying industries. I hope that in his discussions with industry he will keep this point very much in mind.
      Mr. John Fraser: I have been asked to reply for the Opposition.
      When the Secretary of State spoke a second time, with the leave of the House, he spoke with all the pain of a kindly uncle who has been offended because some refractory nephew has refused a present which has been sent to him. The reason that the trade unions have not cooperated with the C.I.R. is. that it is inextricably linked to the working of the Industrial Court, to the imposition of damages, and to the legal paraphernalia and proceedings which they find so repugnant and which most sensible observers believe will not be helpful to the improvement of industrial relations. It is for that reason that we have the Amendment to Amendment No. 92.
      If, when he opened the debate, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the inter-relationship between local and national bargaining, if he was speaking in the context of a voluntary system without the imposition of courts, orders and proceedings for damages for unfair industrial practice, his remarks would have been absolutely impeccable. But the proposal which he is putting before the House is that the Commission should be able to exclude from a sole bargaining agent arrangement certain matters to be negotiated at national level. That is good enough. Indeed, in our Amendment to Amendment No. 92 we say that the Commission may specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements in question. But if we accept the rest of the Amendment, it means that the process of law can follow a union which tries to negotiate a matter which has been reserved in which it does not have exclusive negotiating rights. Such a union could find itself brought before the court for damages for an unfair industrial practice. These proposals taken on their own
      1610
      are unexceptionable; it is linking them with the legal paraphernalia of the court which the trade union movement finds unacceptable. That is why, at the appropriate stage, we shall divide upon our Amendment.
      Mr. David Waddington: I apologise for not having been in the House in the last few minutes. I thought that it might be worth going to the Library, in view of the exchange which took place between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), to look into that matter. I have been to the Library and been able to find, in The Times of 26th March, the full reasons stated by Mr. Woodcock for his resignation as Chairman of the C.I.R. The report, by Mr. Michael Thomas, states:
      "Mr. Woodcock made it clear yesterday, both in his letter to Mr. Carr and in a public statement, that he would not have resigned only because of the functions assigned to the C.I.R. by the Industrial Relations Bill. It was the trade union boycott that had decided him.
      He had hoped that when the Bill became law most references to the C.I.R. would be by the consent of the parties and not require the use of compulsory provisions. But to help employers and unions in voluntary reform"—
      [Interruption.] I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to listen, because this is important. It gives the lie to the suggestion by the right hon. Lady that Mr. George Woodcock resigned because of the terms of the Bill. He did not.
      I will repeat that last passage so that it may sink into the consciousness of hon. Gentlemen opposite:
      "He had hoped that when the Bill became law most references to the C.I.R. would be by the consent of the parties and not require the use of compulsory provisions. But to help employers and unions in voluntary reform the C.I.R. needed their assistance and co-operation.
      From now on, by the decision of the special Trades Union Congress last week, there would be no union co-operation. To extend their boycott to all the activities of the C.I.R., Mr. Woodcock said, was to assumed 'comprehensive guilt from limited association'."
      I would have thought it was obvious from that passage that Mr. George Woodcock was impliedly criticising the special meeting of the T.U.C. for its decision in this matter and making it plain that he was not resigning because of the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Gentleman ought to be

      1611
      aware that on his appointment Mr. Woodcock gave an interview in which he referred to the C.I.R. as the greatest advance in industrial relations in his lifetime, and that during that same interview he said that he was opposed to the principle of legal enforceability. He repeated that statement, and the reason for his resignation is clear. It was that he objected to legal enforceability being imposed on the C.I.R.
      Mr. Waddington: I should have thought that what mattered in the context of this argument was what Mr. Woodcock said at the time of his resignation, not what he said at the time of his appointment. What he said at the time of his resignation is apparent from that report in the Press.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the reasons for the resignations of Commissioners Paynter, Allen and Flanders?
      Mr. Waddington: I thought that I was rather astute in dashing out of the Chamber to get the report from which I have just quoted. If the hon. Gentleman will give me another five minutes, I shall see whether I can get some more reports.
      Mr. Walker: Not only did Mr. George Woodcock resign because of the Bill, but Commissioners Paynter and Allen made it clear that they were resigning because of the introduction of this legislation.
      Mr. Waddington: I was merely dealing with the reasons for Mr. George Woodsock's resignation. He did not resign beat use of the Bill.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Before we conclude the debate on this matter, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for leaving the Chamber in order to get a report of what Mr. George Woodsock said. It completely vindicates the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and it is a good thing that that is on the record.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 76, in page 33, line 7, leave out "which will be binding
      1612
      on them "and insert" on their behalf".
      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 is a clarifying Amendment. Its purpose is to clarify the definition of a joint negotiating panel, that is, a body consisting of representatives of two or more organisations of workers. The purpose is to ensure that the definition of a joint negotiating panel is not limited to those panels which are authorised to enter into legally enforceable agreements. It was never the intention to make the definition so narrow, but that could possibly be the effect of the paragraph as it is drafted.
      What we want to ensure is simply that a body is a joint negotiating panel if it can commit any organisations of workers represented on the panel as if those organisations of workers were a direct party to any agreement reached by the panel. The Amendment will ensure that even if joint negotiating panels are only authorised to enter into agreements which are binding in honour only they will fall within the definition of "joint negotiating panel".
      We feel that this is clearly a sensible Amendment, and we hope that it will be accepted.
      Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman referred to this as a clarifying Amendment. I suppose that it is an advance on some of the mystifying Amendments that we have had from his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. But it is more than that, though I do not want to take up much time on this.
      The Amendment is necessary, and the Government have belatedly recognised that because one can hardly conceive of any joint negotiating panel which could be vested with the power to enter into binding collective agreements. As the Clause stood it would have included, and restricted inclusion to, panels vested with those powers. That would have been a nonsense, and the Government have recognised that.
      Paragraph (d) presumed far too much, and now the reality is recognised by the hon. Gentleman, by implication, in the Amendment. The reality is that few, if

      1613
      any, collective agreements will be made in circumstances where the parties intend them to be binding. The Government know that from yesterday's debate. All that they have imported into the law is a preliminary point in almost every set of negotiations, whether the agreement should or should not be binding, and by this they have changed the whole process of collective bargaining. But we went over that pretty thoroughly yesterday. To have left the original wording would have been to ignore reality.
      Because it is always pleasant to see the Government come to their senses, even on a narrow point such as this, we do not intend to divide the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 44

      REFERENCE TO COMMISSION ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 43
      Lords Amendment: No. 79, leave out Clause 44 and insert the following new Clause—
      "44.—(1) If on an application under section 43 of this Act the Industrial Court is satisfied—

      (a) that it is not precluded by section 51(5) of this Act from entertaining the application;

      (b) that the employer or employers to whom the application relates, and the organisations of workers appearing to the Court to have, or to be seeking, negotiating rights in respect of the whole or part of the specified group of employees, have endeavoured to settle the questions proposed to be referred to the Commission and, for that purpose, have made adequate use of any facilities for conciliation available to them, whether in pursuance of section 43(4) of this Act or otherwise; and

      (c) that reference of those questions to the Commission is necessary with a view to promoting a satisfactory and lasting settlement of them,

      the Industrial Court, subject to the next following subsection, shall refer those questions to the Commission.
      (2) The Industrial Court shall not be required to refer any questions under this section to the Commission on an application relating to a group of employees if it appears to the Court that—

      (a) a reference under this section relating to that group of employees or relating to a group of employees which in the opinion of the Court does not substantially differ
      1614
      from it, was under consideration by the Commission within the period of two years ending with the date of the application, and

      (b) in the circumstances a further reference on that application after so short an interval would not be justified."

      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we take the following Lords Amendments: No. 80, in page 35, line 11, leave out "question has been referred" and insert "reference has been made".
      No. 81, in line 15, leave out "question" and insert "questions in issue".
      No. 82, in line 19, leave out from "after" to "and" in line 20 and insert
      "such a reference has been made".
      No. 83, in line 22, leave out "question" and insert "questions in issue".
      No. 85, in line 33, leave out from "employer" to end of line 36 and insert
      "unless he is an associated employer in relation to the employer or employers to whom the reference originally related".
      No. 86, in page 36, line 13, leave out "a question" and insert "any questions".
      No. 87, in line 15, leave out "that question" and insert "those questions".
      No. 88, in line 19, leave out "on that question".
      No. 89, in line 24, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 27 and insert
      "comprised in the reference, either as originally made or as extended".
      The Solicitor-General: These Amendments are all related to the same point. They are all designed to restructure Clause 44 and to make some associated Amendments to Clauses 45 and 46 in the light of Amendments made to Clause 43 by this House on Report.
      Amendment No. 79 consists of replacing old Clause 44 by a new one. Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, 86 and 87 involve replacing the singular with the plural at six places in Clauses 45 and 46. Amendment No. 85 simplifies the meaning of "associated employer" in Clause 45. Amendment No. 89 does the same in

      1615
      Clause 46 in relation to an extended reference.
      The effect of all these Amendments is to take account of the changes made in this House to Clause 43, whereby the Commission, when a question is referred to it, has greater flexibility and can deal more appropriately with a reference. The questions as originally formulated in the old Clauses 42 and 43, without Amendment, were in different forms according to whether the application was made by an employer, a union or the Secretary of State.
      This House altered that so as to make the same questions arise whoever made the reference and so as to enable the Commission to investigate in all these cases both the question of the bargaining unit and the question of the bargaining agent. These changes are a necessary consequence of those previously accepted in this House to Clauses 44, 45 and 46.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: Could the Solicitor-General say whether in Amendment No. 85 the term "associated employer" has the official meaning given to the words in Clause 158(6), the definition Clause? The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that a specialised meaning is given to "associated employer". Is that the meaning given to it in Amendment No. 35 and, indeed, throughout the Bill?
      The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is the intention.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: As the Solicitor-General said, the object of Amendment No. 79 is to substitute new Clause No. 44 for the present Clause 44. We on these benches are in some difficulty. During the Committee stage the Government tabled certain Amendments, and, if I remember aright, those Amendments were not reached in Committee because of the operation of the guillotine. They concerned the sole bargaining agent, and at this stage I ought to reiterate that this is a principle to which we are opposed because we are opposed to the whole concept of the agency shop. I appreciate that we have discussed this matter in connection with previous Amendments; it is ground that we have already
      1616
      traversed, but that cannot be avoided, much as we would like to do so.
      As the Solicitor-General said, new Clause 44 must be taken in conjunction with Clause 43. This proposed new Clause, which is entitled
      "Reference to Commission on application under s.43",
      like the one which it replaces, precludes any application under Clause 51(5). At this stage the Clause becomes extraordinarily complicated because Clause 51(5) must be considered in association with Clauses 49 and 50. Clause 49 allows any employee in a sole bargaining agency to make an application to the Industrial Court. A trade union should not continue to represent the workers if the workers do not want it to do so, provided that, I think, two-fifths of the workers signify in writing that they support the application. By Clause 48, unless at least one-fifth of the employees have signified their support for the application, an application cannot be made.
      We believe that the whole principle is wrong. We regard it as a most complicated business and, although it may tidy up the other Clause, nevertheless, we cannot support the Amendment because we oppose the whole principle. We believe that the C.I.R. should not be involved. The Industrial Court should not determine any such questions. It should exist on the basis on which it previously existed. We do not believe that this proposal would help good industrial relations. In addition, it would mean that the courts would be very much overloaded and that there would be long periods of time before issues could be solved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) the other day mentioned "Catch 22". The more one goes into this and discovers the cross references involved, the more complicated it becomes. In those circumstances, we shall have to oppose the Amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 221.

      Division No. 459.]

      AYES

      [5.5 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Molyneaux, James

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Goodhart, Philip

      Money, Ernle

      Awdry, Daniel

      Goodhew, Victor

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Hector

      Balniel, Lord

      Gower, Raymond

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gray, Hamish

      More, Jasper

      Batsford, Brian

      Green, Alan

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mudd, David

      Benyon, W.

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Murton, Oscar

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Biffen, John

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Normanton, Tom

      Blaker, Peter

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Nott, John

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Body, Richard

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Osborn, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Braine, Bernard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Bray, Ronald

      Havers, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Brewis, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Peel, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Percival, Ian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hicks, Robert

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bryan, Paul

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

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

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

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Buck, Antony

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hordern, Peter

      Raison, Timothy

      Burden, F. A.

      Hornby, Richard

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Redmond, Robert

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Channon, Paul

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hunt, John

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      James, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cockeram, Eric

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Coombs, Derek

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Jopling, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Costain, A. P.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Scott, Nicholas

      Critchley, Julian

      Kilfedder, James

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Crouch, David

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Sharples, Richard

      Curran, Charles

      Kinsey, J. R.

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

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kirk, Peter

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Knox, David

      Simeons, Charles

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

      Lambton, Antony

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dean, Paul

      Lane, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

      Dixon, Piers

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Soref, Harold

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Speed, Keith

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Spence, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sproat, Iain

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Loveridge, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eden, Sir John

      Luce, R. N.

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stokes, John

      Emery, Peter

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Eyre, Reginald

      McLaren, Martin

      Sutcliffe, John

      Farr, John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      McMaster, Stanley

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Fidler, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Temple, John M.

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Maddan, Martin

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Madel, David

      Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Marten, Neil

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Fowler, Norman

      Mather, Carol

      Tilney, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Maude, Angus

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

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

      Mawby, Ray

      Trew, Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Turron, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Gardner, Edward

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      1618

      1619

      Waddington, David

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Wall, Patrick

      Wilkinson, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Walters, Dennis

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Foley, Maurice

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Foot, Michael

      Meacher, Michael

      Allen, Scholefield

      Ford, Ben

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Forrester, John

      Mendelson, John

      Ashley, Jack

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Millan, Bruce

      Ashton, Joen

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Garrett, W. E.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Molloy, William

      Barnes, Michael

      Golding, John

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Barnett, Joel

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Beaney, Alan

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Movie, Roland

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Malley, Brian

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Oram, Bert

      Booth, Albert

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Orme, Stanley

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Hattersley, Roy

      Oswald, Thomas

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Bradley, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Paget, R. T.

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

      Horam, John

      Palmer, Arthur

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Buchan, Norman

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest C.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Prescott, John

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Janner, Greville

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Probert, Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Reed, D. (Sedgefiel)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Cronin, John

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

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Roper, John

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davidson, Arthur

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

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Judd, Frank

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

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Silverman, Julius

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Small, William

      Delargy, H. J.

      Latham, Arthur

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lawson, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Doig, Peter

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Stallard, A. W.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Leonard, Dick

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Driberg, Tom

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Strang, Gavin

      Dunnett, Jack

      Loughlin, Charles

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McBride, Neil

      Tinn, James

      Ellis, Tom

      McGuire, Michael

      Tomney, Frank

      English, Michael

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Torney, Tom

      Evans, Fred

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tuck, Raphael

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Varley, Eric G.

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

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

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Marquand, David

      Wallace, George

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Watkins, David

      Weitzman, David

      1620

      1621

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Woof, Robert

      Mr. William Hamling.

      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 46

      REPORT OF COMMISSION ON REFERENCE UNDER S. 44
      Lords Amendment: No. 90, in page 36, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert:
      "appearing to the Commission to be directly concerned in the questions specified in the reference".
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to require the Commission on Industrial Relations to send a copy of its report under Clause 46 not only to the recommended bargaining agent but also to any other organisations of workers which appear to the Commission to be directly concerned in the questions considered by it. This seems to us a sensible and desirable change, and, what is more, it is in accordance with the C.I.R's present practice.
      It seems right, for instance, that, as a matter of courtesy, any organisation of workers whose claims to recognition were considered in a Clause 46 report should receive a copy of the report rather than have to read about it in the Press or buy a copy for themselves. This is a small but sensible adjustment, and I hope that the Opposition will be able to accept it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 91, in page 37, line 1, after "and" insert "professional or other".
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Clause 46(3) gives directions to the C.I.R. as to the sort of considerations that it must take into account in making a recommendation about bargaining agents. It says that:
      "… the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees in that group have interests in common, having regard in particular, in relation to each such description of employees, to—
      1622

      (a) the nature of the work which they are employed to do, and

      (b) their training, experience and qualifications."

      The Amendment will make the last reference one to "professional or other" qualifications and will allay fears expressed in the early stages of the Bill and very strongly in another place.
      We could see no objection to introducing this. We believe that it makes the position clearer and reassures people who were concerned that otherwise their point of view and their needs might not have to be taken into account. It is for clarification and to set at rest the fears of people who have no reason to fear but whom we thought it right to reassure.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has achieved by trying to reassure certain people of certain things, he has not reassured me of anything. I remind him of our powerful expression of opposition to the division of trade unionists that is represented by the special register and this method of catering for professional workers.
      That powerful opposition was voiced on Report, and I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman presenting an adequate explanation on that occasion of what the Government mean by professional workers or professional persons. What criteria are to be employed to remove these individuals from the rest of the trade union movement?
      The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on a number of occasions he lectured me about the wordiness of proposals. I recall his complaints about the superfluity of words in legislation. Indeed, I remember the right hon. Gentleman frequently using the word "tautology" in this context. Why has he now introduced these superfluous words? If it is desirable to have this discrimination in favour of a certain group of people, it should be covered by the existing wording which relates to their training, experience and qualifications.
      The right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to allay fears, but he did not say

      1623
      what they were or who had voiced them. He then said that these steps were being taken to reassure people. Who needs reassuring? Then he told us that certain needs had to be met. What are they?
      While acknowledging the practicalities of the situation and the need to modify absolute principles to meet the real needs of the situation, the guiding principle should always be that justice is indivisible. Likewise, the trade union movement is indivisible. Here the right hon. Gentleman is introducing something that is divisive, and unless he can offer a satisfactory explanation, I shall have to recommend my hon. Friends to oppose the Amendment in the Lobby.
      Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State began by referring to a direction to the C.I.R. Earlier he said that the C.I.R. was independent and free—that George Woodcock had resigned not because he did not want to work with the C.I.R. but because the T.U.C. had made it impossible for him to do so. Now he is saying that the C.I.R. is to be directed to take special account of professional organisations and others.
      This division which the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to create within the trade union movement, between ordinary and professional groups of workers, is deplorable. Those of us who have the trade union movement at heart have watched with pride the spread of unionism into the middle classes and professional groups. Bona fide trade unions have sprung up in many sections of the professional sphere where unionism did not exist previously. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to call a deliberate halt to this progress through the special register and by the C.I.R. being directed to treat certain groups of workers differently.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker) asked some pertinent questions to which the right hon. Gentleman must reply. We are entitled to know what the fears are and who expressed them. Have they come from doctors, nurses or professional engineers? Hon. Members may have in mind one professional organisation which was involved in the infamous Newcastle-upon-Tyne case. Why do the Government wish to introduce different standards
      1624
      for professional workers? I ask this without any hostility to these people.
      With the development of the multinational company, higher management and other professional groups are realising the importance of trade unionism. They need protection nowadays because many of the decisions affecting their future are taken not in Britain but in the United States, Frankfurt and elsewhere.
      Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend comment on the problem that will face many professional workers who are not members of professional organisations which are chartered or limited companies? Is it not a fact that many professional workers who join organisations which are real trade unions in the full sense of the term, such as A.S.T.M.S., will be placed at a severe disadvantage as a result of this Measure? Does my hon. Friend agree that the real purpose of this part of the Bill and of the special register is to undermine the extension of professional trade unionism by using the phrase "professional workers" in an entirely different sense?
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in referring to the fantastic success that A.S.T.M.S. has had in recent years in organising beyond the level of what are called ordinary workers and into the professional classes. He is also right to say that this Measure may result in professional workers being placed in a different category from their counterparts and that this could represent a threat to the extended organisation of bodies like A.S.T.M.S.
      It is clear that the battle will be fought far from the factory bench. The traditional conflict that has gone on over trade union matters of this kind in the mines and docks will be transferred to the higher echelons of the industrial sphere, mainly because of the vast number of workers in the middle category of management and those with professional ability who have become organised in trade unions.
      The right hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to protect small select groups. The Royal College of Nursing comes to mind in this context. Many organisations have not been militant in fighting for the rights of their members. For example, the rights of nurses were not sufficiently sought because the nurses' representatives

      1625
      did not consider the task of improving rights a suitable job for them. Bank employees also found the need for trade unionism. It was not until the Union of Bank Employees was formed, and exposed the manner in which its members had been left behind, that a sufficient change was brought about in banking.
      Many organisations representing select groups of workers have not developed in a trade union sense. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that these provisions will in any way inhibit the activities of, for example, Clive Jenkins? Why is he taking this action?
      Mr. R. Carr: Do not these people have the same rights as others to develop their organisations as they wish? Why, because they want to do it their way, should they automatically be labelled reactionary, when other people are automatically labelled progressive?
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: They were so unsuccessful on representing those whom they purported to represent that these other organisations have replaced them. My accusation is that the Minister is trying to bolster up these old organisations, and stop the spread of broad trade unionism in the sense of unions which are affiliated to the T.U.C. and prepared to associate with industrial trade unionism. I should have thought that the Minister, and particularly the Prime Minister, who talks of the classless society, would have been pleased to see the professional unions more towards the T.U.C. We believe that these present proposals will retard that movement.
      Mr. David Mitchell: It becomes increasingly obvious that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is having great difficulty in sustaining the mountain of rhetoric he heaps on every House of Lords Amendment. He has just referred to the C.I.R. being dictated to, yet in the Bill we find that, far from the C.I.R. being dictated to, the whole of the relevant passage is qualified by the words "the Commission shall consider" or the "Commission shall have regard".
      There is no question there of dictatorship, of the wording being binding on the C.I.R. in its totality. Paragraph (b) adds that it is designed to
      1626
      "… promote a satisfactory and lasting settlement of the questions in issue in the reference."
      How can that be tied up with the hon. Gentleman's comments, which indicated a deep purpose of dissension in the Government's mind, and a degree of dictatorship to the C.I.R. which is not in the Bill?
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: The words "professional or other" appear to be wholly out of place, and the explanation given to us does not convince me. The present wording of the appropriate part of the subsection covers the nature of the work the people are employed to do, and
      "their training, experience and qualifications."
      A moment ago the Secretary of State said that we were all equal in our wishes, or that they were all equal in their wishes; I am not sure which version he used. If the right hon. Gentleman really means what he says, the logic of his thinking should be to leave paragraph (b) as it stands, because no artificial distinction is made with regard to training, experience or qualifications.
      I do not want to be legalistic, but I think that both from the legal point of view and from the point of view of common sense the word "qualifications" is very apt to cover the whole spectrum of qualifications of the semi-skilled worker up to the highly-skilled technician and up to and including the highest level of professional qualifications. Therefore, the use of the word "qualifications" does all that this part of the Bill is required to do, according to what the Secretary of State has told us.
      If that is so, it is impossible to appreciate why the words "professional or other" are brought in. They do not qualify anything. On the contrary, they rather introduce an ambiguity, and suggest that at least some kind of distinction is being drawn between professional and non-professional qualifications. Yet it appears from what we have been told that that is not intended. In that case, why put in these words?
      There is a rule of law known as the ejusdem generis rule, though I hesitate to say that it applies here. Yet it is just possible that that rule might be conceived of as applying here, in which case the word "professional" would, as it were, redirect the meaning of "or other", and that instead of reading this in the sense

      1627
      of professional qualifications on the one hand and other qualifications on the other the two might be taken together.
      The Solicitor-General: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that his own extreme hesitation in advancing that argument—and it is inadmissible in this context—is due to the fact that it refers only to "professional or other", and that by identifying only the professional qualification it is not taken to identify a genus, and that it is for that reason that his argument, rightly advanced with hesitation, is without foundation?
      Mr. Murray: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his intervention. I put the argument forward very tentatively, and he is probably right to say that it is not a sound argument. On the other hand, I am not convinced by what the Solicitor-General said, because it seems not certain that a court would take the view that no genus is defined. The word "professional" is special, and if one comes across that word with other words of qualification the normal canon would bring the ejusdem generis rule into play. The word "professional" is very special, and if we have that word with the words "or other qualifications" for the first time a court might take the view that this word, with the others attached, might attract that principle. I put it as a possibility which cannot be ruled out, and as long as that possibility exists I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the Amendment.
      Mr. R. Carr: I admire and welcome the ingenuities of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), and I am even more grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for entering into a legal argument, which, as a non-lawyer, I am not able to do. It may not surprise the hon. and learned Gentleman to learn that I am more inclined to take my hon. and learned Friend's advice than his on this occasion.
      The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) pointed out with some fairness that in recent years, when he and I sat on different sides of the House from those on which we now sit, I used at times to chide him for the inclusion of unnecessary words in legislation, and I
      1628
      do not in any way object to his getting his own back. It is now my turn to bend over and take six of the best, and I receive them, I hope, with equanimity.
      The reason for the introduction of these words was to allay fears, and to reassure. Hon. Members opposite have asked "Who? "and" What?", but their remarks show that they know the answers. The people in mind are people like professional engineers, doctors, and the like, who find themselves in modern employment, in the way in which both modern industry and modern medical research, for instance, is developing, working in the midst of a large number of people in conditions which did not apply some years ago. Those people have genuine fears. The fears may be unreasonable; fears often are, even though they are genuine. I do not think that we should in any way object to giving reassurance provided that in doing so we do not harm anyone else. I do not believe that this recognition of those fears and this reassurance in any way harm anyone else. I therefore see no objection to the Amendment.
      The subsection of which the phrase forms part charges the Commission not only to take account of these things and these people but to take account of the identities and common interests of all groups of employees within the union at which the Commission is looking. It is, therefore, not exclusive of others. We have here people who increasingly find themselves as little minority groups within larger units and, whether they are reasonable or right, they have these fears and it is right to reassure them.
      The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pointed out that trade unions were now spreading into the middle and professional classes. That is right and inevitable, and it will go on. But, if that is so, I should have thought that not only did we owe these people the right to develop their organisations in their own way, but that if the more traditional type of trade union, to put it that way, wanted to win them over into its ranks, and it could well be in their long-term interests so to be won, such a trade union would be well advised not to have overridden, or to have seemed to have overridden, the genuine fears of such people. Rightly or wrongly, some of them are afraid that

      1629
      they will be swallowed in an environment which is alien to them and which at this stage they do not believe to be in their interests.
      It may well come about that if the trade unions concerned advance their cause and their recruiting with some sensitivity for the feelings of these people and for the feelings of others, they will be won over, in which case that will probably be for the general orderliness of the industry and the bargaining that has to take place and in the interests of the people concerned, but these feelings must be treated with a little sensitivity and understanding.
      Mr. Rose: Would not the right hon. Gentleman treat with the same sensitivity and understand the fears advanced by many members of organisations such as A.S.T.M.S., because by definition many professional workers have to join a professional organisation in order to work in the profession and that professional organisation may have some negotiating right which automatically puts A.S.T.M.S. at a disadvantage?
      Secondly and more important, if it does not register, it cannot get an agency shop, and the organisation which does register may apply for an agency shop, so that A.S.T.M.S. would be at a second disadvantage. I believe that A.S.T.M.S. would overcome that disadvantage as there are various methods of doing so, but, with his great sensitivity, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these fears are being expressed far and wide by many professional workers?
      Mr. Carr: Of course I do. One way out of one dilemma of A.S.T.M.S. would be to register, and that would be sensible, right and proper. But if it decides not to do so—and it is perfectly free so to decide—it is not free to decide in all ways, to do some things but not to do others.
      Of course we recognise the fears of members of A.S.T.M.S., but in any particular circumstances we ought to appreciate more particularly the fears of a minority. It will be within the recollection of the House that when these matters were discussed earlier I strongly refused to consider suggestions for giving in specific terms special consideration to some minorities but not to others. I said that if I had some understanding of the fears
      1630
      of two or three doctors working among 300 or 400 clerical workers, equally I could understand the fears of two or three clerical workers working among 300 or 400 doctors. In whatever circumstances, one should have particular regard to the genuine fears of the minority. That is what we are doing here.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman express equal concern on behalf of those tiny minorities which are discriminated against by professional bodies? Here I hope I shall touch a responsive chord in the right hon. Gentleman. He and I were discussing our mutual disabilities the other evening and we were referring to the way in which osteopaths are not recognised by the medical profession and as such discriminated against by a profession organisation. I should like him equally to turn his attention to that kind of situation.
      Mr. Carr: Indeed, but that is not an industrial relations matter. That is a matter of statutory professional qualifications, the sort of qualifications which the country in its wisdom, or lack of it, believes it right for a man to possess before he can offer a certain service in certain important areas. It is an important matter, but this does not concern the industrial relations position of minorities, which is what we are concerned with now.
      The Opposition are, of course, entirely free to decide whether to divide the House. We believe that these words should be included. We believe that they will allay fears which may be unfounded, but which are genuine, without harming majority interests now or in prospect.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Curran: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is sticking firmly to the point and refusing to retreat before the rather confused arguments which are being addressed to him. This is a matter of great importance. The question is whether people with professional qualifications are to be allowed to stick together if they want to.
      I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). If I understood him aright, he said that there was something wrong about that and that it was a matter for suspicion, alarm and apprehension if people holding professional qualifications in accountancy,

      1631
      engineering, or medicine chose when entering industry to act collectively with others sharing that qualification. I cannot for the life of me see why they should not. I cannot see why, if they choose to do their bargaining through a professional organisation, the law should get in their way.
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman has got my argument wrong. We are not opposing professional people joining an organisation of accountants or lawyers. We are saying that where appropriate they should also join a bona fide trade union.
      Mr. Curran: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman has put it very clearly. He did not put it so clearly in his speech. If people want to join a trade union, by all means let them do so; but what about those who do not? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give people who wish to do their bargaining through a professional organisation and do not want to join a trade union the freedom so to choose, or does he wish to deprive them of that freedom?
      Mr. Orme: If people who are not in a union do not expect and do not receive the benefits enjoyed by those who do join, there may be some justification in that argument.
      Mr. Curran: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to shift the argument. I bring him back to the straight question. Let us imagine that a professional engineer, who is a member of his professional organisation, joins industry and chooses that his bargaining about his terms of employment should be done through his professional body. As things are, he is free to do so and he is free to say that he will not join a trade union. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to take that freedom from him now?
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman missed my argument.
      Mr. Curran: On the contrary; the hon. Gentleman appreciates the argument, but he declines to meet it. He was more explicit in his interruption than he was in his speech, but his speech was a plea in support of the assertion that professional people should be compelled to join trade unions even if they did not want to join.
      1632
      I believe that the House does not have the smallest right to say to professional people in industry that if they do not want to join a union Parliament will make them do so.
      Mr. Ernest Fernyhough: I agree that the man who does not want to join a trade union on that basis has every right to say that nobody should compel him. However, if the firm says that he cannot join it unless he joins the superannuation scheme, would the hon. Gentleman think that that man had a right to withdraw from that superannuation scheme?
      Mr. Curran: That, too, is a separate question. There may well be a case for saying that an employer should not have that right, but that is not what I am arguing; that is a separate question. I am arguing the question which is before the House, raised by this Amendment. I am interested to see how far I can get an answer as to whether the Labour Party is saying that professional men who go to work in industry are to be free as they are now to leave bargaining on their behalf to their professional organisations or whether it is saying that this freedom must be taken away and these men compelled to bargain not through their professional bodies but through a trade union.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman normally wishing to attribute to the Labour Party or to any other group something that is not so. It is uncharacteristic of him, and he knows I mean that. What is behind this—and let us take the steel works as an example—is that there have been many organisations over the years—A.S.T.M.S. is not the only one; the Steel Confederation is another—which have sought to recruit middle and junior management and felt it right to have them in the same organisation, expressing solidarity. That is what is behind the Amendment, not the general problem of whether there is a right to belong to a union. We object to people in professional bodies being placed in a special category because we fear that this will militate in future against the desire of the unions to recruit junior and middle management into their ranks. That is all there is to it.
      Mr. Curran: I do not care whether it does militate against the tendency which

      1633
      the hon. Gentleman regards as admirable. That is a matter of opinion. If professional people go into the steel industry and choose to join a trade union, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman is using that phrase, then by all means let them do so. I do not have the smallest objection, and neither have the Government. Suppose such people do not want to join. Are they still to have their present freedom? Apparently not. There will be freedom one way but not the other. The hon. Gentleman seems to think like Henry Ford, that they can have it in any colour they like as long as it is red. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see how unwilling the critics are to face our questions plainly and answer them plainly.
      I am glad to see that the Minister will not be shaken by these cloudy and disingenuous arguments, all the more so since in the past the trade union move
      ment has been willing enough and eager enough to recognise that there are distinctions between skilled and unskilled workers. If skilled workers wish to form a union of their own the trade union movement has never discouraged it. It has never said, "We cannot permit unions for skilled workers". Yet when we ask for the same principle to be applied to the new kind of worker now entering industry we are told that such a principle is monstrous. It seems that the case against this is not only muddled and disingenuous but an attempt to undermine the principles on which trade unionism has been based.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 265 Noes 227.

      Division No. 460.]

      AYES

      [5.45 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Coombs, Derek

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Grylls, Michael

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Costain, A. P.

      Gurden, Harold

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Critchley, Julian

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Crouch, David

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Curran, Charles

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Balniel, Lord

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Batsford, Brian

      Dean, Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Dixon, Piers

      Havers, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Hawkins, Paul

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Hay, John

      Biffen, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Biggs-Davison, John

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hicks, Robert

      Blaker, Peter

      Eden, Sir John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Body, Richard

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

      Boscawen, Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Eyre, Reginald

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Bowden, Andrew

      Farr, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Fell, Anthony

      Hornby, Richard

      Braine, Bernard

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Bray, Ronald

      Fidler, Michael

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Brewis, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hunt, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Fowler, Norman

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Bryan, Paul

      Fox, Marcus

      James, David

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

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Buck, Antony

      Fry, Peter

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Jopling, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Gardner, Edward

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Kilfedder, James

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Channon, Paul

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kirk, Peter

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Knox, David

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gorst, John

      Lambton, Antony

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Gower, Raymond

      Lane, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gray, Hamish

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Clegg, Walter

      Green, Alan

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Cockeram, Eric

      Grieve, Percy

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Longden, Gilbert

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Loveridge, John

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

      Luce, R. N.

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Peel, John

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Percival, Ian

      Tebbit, Norman

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Temple, John M.

      McLaren, Martin

      Pounder, Rafton

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Prior, Rt. An. J. M. L.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Raison, Timothy

      Tilney, John

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Maddan, Martin

      Redmond, Robert

      Trew, Peter

      Madel, David

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Marten, Neil

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Mather, Carol

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Maude, Angus

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Mawby, Ray

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Waddington, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

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

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Rost, Peter

      Wall, Patrick

      Moate, Roger

      Russell, Siir Ronald

      Walters, Dennis

      Molyneaux, James

      Scott, Nicholas

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Money, Ernle

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Sharples, Richard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Monro, Hector

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

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      More, Jasper

      Simeons, Charles

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wilkinson, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Mudd, David

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

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Murton, Oscar

      Soref, Harold

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Neave, Airey

      Spence, John

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Worsley, Marcus

      Normanton, Tom

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Nott, John

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Stepney)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Stokes, John

      Mr. Keith Speed and

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Osborn, John

      Sutcliffe, John

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Ford, Ben

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Forrester, John

      Allen, Scholefield

      Cronin, John

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Ashley, Jack

      Dalyell, Tam

      Garrett, W. E.

      Ashton, Joe

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Davidson, Arthur

      Golding, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Barnes, Michael

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Barnett, Joel

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Beaney, Alan

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Delargy, H. J.

      Hamling, William

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Doig, Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Booth Albert

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Driberg, Tom

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Bradley, Tom

      Dunnett, Jack

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Horam, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Ellis, Tom

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      English, Michael

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Evans, Fred

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Janner, Greville

      Cohen, Stanley

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Conlan, Bernard

      Foley, Maurice

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

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Foot, Michael

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      1636

      1637

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Mendelson, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      John, Brynmor

      Millan, Bruce

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Molloy, William

      Silverman, Julius

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Small, William

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Spearing, Nigel

      Judd, Frank

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Murray, Ronald King

      Stallard, A. W.

      Kelley, Richard

      Ogden, Eric

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Kinnock, Neil

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Lambie, David

      O'Malley, Brian

      Strang, Gavin

      Latham, Arthur

      Oram, Bert

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Lawson, George

      Orme, Stanley

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

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Oswald, Thomas

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

      Leonard, Dick

      Paget, R. T.

      Tinn, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tomney, Tom

      Lipton, Marcus

      Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Torney, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Tuck, Rachael

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Varley, Eric G.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Pentland, Norman

      Wainwright, Edwin

      McBride, Neil

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      McGuire, Michael

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Wallace, George

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Prescott, John

      Watkins, David

      Mackie, John

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Weitzman, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Probert, Arthur

      Whitehead, Phillip

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Richard, Ivor

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Marquand, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Marsden, F.

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caemarvon)

      Woof, Robert

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Meacher, Michael

      Roper, John

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      Lords Amendment: No. 92, in page 38, line 8, at end insert:
      ("(8) Where the Commission determine, in making a report under this section, to recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiation panel as sole bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, and it appears to the Commission that there are in existence more extensive bargaining arrangements which will be applicable to the employees comprised or to be comprised in that bargaining unit, the recommendation—
      (a) may specify the more extensive bargaining arrangements in question, and

      10

      (b) may be made subject to the reservation that the organisation or panel, at any time when it is recognised as sole bargaining agent in pursuance of the recommendation, shall not have exclusive negotiating rights in respect of matters which are at that time being dealt with under

      15

      the specified arrangements or which are then the subject of a collective agreement negotiated under those arrangements.")

      Read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment: In line 9, leave out from "question" to end of Amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 268.

      Division No. 461.]

      AYES

      [6.05 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Ashton, Joe

      Barnett, Joel

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Beaney, Alan

      Alten, Scholefield

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Barnes, Michael

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Ashley, Jack

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamling, William

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Booth, Albert

      Hardy, Peter

      Ogden, Eric

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Bradley, Tom

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oram, Bert

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

      Hattersley, Roy

      Orme, Stanley

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

      Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis

      Oswald, Thomas

      Buchan, Norman

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'bum)

      Horam, John

      Paget, R. T.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pentland, Norman

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hunter, Adam

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Janner, Greville

      Prescott, John

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

      Probert, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Cronin, John

      John, Brynmor

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Richard, Ivor

      Dalyell, Tam

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

      Roper, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Judd, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Davis, T. A. G. (Bromsgrove)

      Kaufman, Gerald

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

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Kelley, Richard

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Silverman, Julius

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lambie, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Doig, Peter

      Latham, Arthur

      Small, William

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lawson, George

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spearing, Nigel

      Driberg, Tom

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Leonard, Dick

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Strang, Gavin

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Summershill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Ellis, Tom

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

      English, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Evans, Fred

      McGuire, Michael

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

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tinn, James

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mackie, John

      Tomney, Frank

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

      Varley, Eric G.

      Foley, Maurice

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Foot, Michael

      Marquand, David

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Ford, Ben

      Marsden, F.

      Wallace, George

      Forrester, John

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Watkins, David

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Weitzman, David

      Freeson, Reginald

      Meacher, Michael

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Millan, Bruce

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Golding, John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Gourlay, Harry

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

      Woof, Robert

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molloy, William

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Barber, Rt Hn. Anthony

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Batsford, Brian

      Body, Richard

      Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Boscawen, Robert

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Benyon, W.

      Bowden, Andrew

      Awdry, Daniel

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Biffen, John

      Braine, Bernard

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Bray, Ronald

      Balniel, Lord

      Blaker, Peter

      Brewis, John

      1640

      1641

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hawkins, Paul

      Peel, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hay, John

      Percival, Ian

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hicks, Robert

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bryan, Paul

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

      Hiley, Joseph

      Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L

      Buck, Antony

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

      Pym, Rt Hn. Francis

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Raison, Timothy

      Burden, F. A.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hordern, Peter

      Redmond, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hornby, Richard

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hornsby Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Channon, Paul

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hunt, John

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clegg, Walter

      James, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Jessel, Toby

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Coombs, Derek

      Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

      Rost, Peter

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Jopling, Michael

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Scott, Nicholas

      Costain, A. P.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Critchley, Julian

      Kilfedder, James

      Sharples, Richard

      Crouch, David

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Curran, Charles

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kirk, Peter

      Simeons, Charles

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Knox, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

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

      Lambton, Antony

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul

      Lane, David

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

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Soref, Harold

      Dixon, Piers

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Speed, Keith

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spence, John

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sproat, Iain

      Drayson, G. B.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Loveridge, John

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Beiper)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luce, R. N.

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Eden, Sir John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stokes, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Emery, Peter

      McLaren, Martin

      Tapsell, Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Farr, John

      McMaster, Stanley

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

      Fell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Fidler, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Maddan, Martin

      Temple, John M.

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Madel, David

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marten, Neil

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Foster, Sir John

      Mather, Carol

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Fowler, Norman

      Maude, Angus

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Fox, Marcus

      Mawby, Ray

      Tilney, John

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Fry, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trew, Peter

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gardner, Edward

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

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)

      Moate, Roger

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Molyneaux, James

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Money, Ernle

      Waddington, David

      Goodhart, Philip

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Coodhew, Victor

      Monro, Hector

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Gower, Raymond

      More, Jasper

      Wall, Patrick

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Walters, Dennis

      Gray, Hamish

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Green, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Grieve, Percy

      Murton, Oscar

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Neave, Airey

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Grylls, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Normanton, Tom

      Wilkinson, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Nott, John

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Osborn, John

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hastings, Stephen

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Havers, Michael

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 47

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR BALLOT AS TO RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
      Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 94, in page 38, line 11, leave out "an employer" and insert "one or more employers".
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Lords Amendment we consider at the same time Lords Amendments:
      No. 95, in page 38, line 16, after "employer" insert:
      "or, if more than one, any of the employers";
      No. 98, in page 39, line 3, after "employer" insert "or employers";
      No. 99, in line 11, after "employer" insert "or employers";
      No. 102, in line 36, leave out "an employer" and insert "one or more employers");
      No. 108, in page 44, line 8, leave out "next following subsection" and insert:
      "following provisions of this section";
      No. 110, in line 38, at end insert:
      "(3A) Subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to an order made under section 48 of this Act in respect of two or more associated employers, but for that purpose shall have effect as if—

      (a) any reference in those subsections to the employer were a reference to any of those employers;

      (b) in subsections (1)(a) and (2) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references to carrying on such bargaining either alone or jointly with any other employer or employers comprised in the order;

      (c) in subsection (1)(b) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references to carrying on such bargaining jointly with the other employer or employers comprised in the order.

      (3B) In relation to an order which is made subject to a reservation under section 48(1A) of this Act, nothing in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as applying to collective bargaining in respect of matters which, by virtue of that reservation, are excepted from the exclusive negotiating rights of the sole bargaining agent."
      Mr. Dudley Smith: These are drafting Amendments and their purpose is quite simple. Clauses 42 to 46 are drafted in terms which may concern either a single employer or a number of associated employers where "associated" is used in a sense of financial association. Clauses 47 to 53, on the other hand, are drafted in terms of only a single employer. Clearly, consistency is necessary and desirable. The Lords Amendments achieve the Government's intention of carrying right through the recommended provisions the concept of associated employers. Thus an order under Clause 48 could be directed to more than one associated employer.
      The purpose of Lords Amendments 102, 108 and 110 is to carry right through the recognition provisions the concept of associated employers, and the intention here is that obligations incurred by a recognition order should, where they relate to carrying out collective bargaining in relation to the recommended bargaining unit, rest on "two or more associated employers" both jointly and singly, but in relation to the obligation when negotiated severally the intention is that it should rest on the employers jointly.
      The new subsection (3B) to Clause 53 is a consequential Amendment to take account of any more extensive bargaining arrangements which may have been specified in an order by the National Industrial Relations Court.
      These Lords Amendments regularise the situation, and I hope that they will be accepted even though their basis, the thinking behind the Bill, is, as we know, not always accepted by the Opposition.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: The what I might call minor Lords Amendments in this group are, as the Minister says, of a drafting nature, but it seems to the Opposition that Amendment No. 110 is one which takes unto itself the principle of these Lords Amendments. I have some difficulty with this, and I hope that the Government may give us some clarification of the significance of Lords Amendment No. 110. If some clarification is not forthcoming I think I would be bound to commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they seriously consider voting against this group of Lords Amendments.

      1645
      My difficulty comes in two parts. The Minister defined "associated employers" in a way which was rather wider than that in the definition Clause, Clause 158(6) and I think that for the assistance of the House I should read that definition, because it is very narrow:
      "For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act 'associated employer" shall be construed accordingly."
      In a debate which we had a short time ago the Solicitor-General reaffirmed the proposition that the words "associated employer" have this technical meaning throughout the Bill, but the Minister a moment ago spoke about two companies being financially associated. He will appreciate, I am sure, that that is a different conception. Companies can be financially associated in a number of ways and need not necessarily be associated in the way described in Clause 158(6). They can be financially associated if one company holds a percentage of shares in the other without control, or they can be financially associated, obviously, by being involved in a common enterprise of some kind.
      Therefore, the first question which I put to the Government is, in what sense are the words "associated employer" used here? Is it the sense which the hon. Gentleman has just stated—financial associations of some kind—or the narrow and strict sense of Clause 158(6)?
      Depending upon the answer to that, there arises the second difficulty, which is the main ground of difficulty for the Opposition. It is not clear, whatever "associated employers" means, why this distinction should be drawn between collective bargaining on a joint and several basis, if I may use that terminology. Subsection (3A) of Amendment 110 talks about
      "… bargaining either alone or jointly with any other employer or employers comprised in the order".
      If, for the purposes of subsections (1)(a) and (2) of Clause 53, one is to get various employers responsible alone or jointly for carrying out what is required of them, if it is justified there why is it not equally justified in subsection (1)(b)? The positive job to carry on as a joint negotiation
      1646
      with a sole bargaining agent is important, but it is just as important that the negative side should be carried out properly as well. If one does not impose in subparagraph (c) the same kind of duty that one imposes in subparagraph (b) one is, when considering the positive responsibilities under subparagraph (b), allowing an employer to say, "I will jointly bargain with the other employers, but I have no responsibility because they will not play." Given that attitude, nothing will be done. The logic of this is far from clear.
      Mr. Kennelh Lewis: This is an interesting legal argument, but in practical terms no employer could possibly take the attitude which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just described, since he or one or other of the employers would be in immediate trouble. They simply would not be able to get anything done on the labour relations side.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not want to take up time. The point I am making has both a legal and a common sense content. I prefer to take my stand basically on the common sense point. If the employer is getting legal advice on his duties and responsibilities and he is told that this is a sole bargaining right, that is one thing, but if he is told that this is a joint bargaining right, that is quite another. Legally, the point is unanswerable and I suggest that it is also unanswerable from the common sense point of view. One needs to know what "associated employers" means. Does it mean the narrow definition in Clause 158(6) or is it in the broad concept which the hon. Gentleman gave? From the common sense point of view, one may assume that the obligation with regard to negative duties is of lesser quality than the obligation with regard to positive duties.
      The Solicitor-General: The term "associated employers" is defined in the Bill. "Financially associated" is a colloquialism which no doubt falls below the very high forensic standards of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) but it accurately fulfils the definition as set out. The intention of these provisions is again to be divided into two halves. The provisions in Clause 53(1)(a) and (2) make it

      1647
      an unfair practice for the employer or associated employers concerned to carry on bargaining outside the recommended structure. In that context, the intention is, whether they do it jointly or severally, that if either one of them by himself or all of them together begin bargaining with a union other than the recognised union, that should be unfair; neither could bargain either severally or jointly.
      On the other hand, the provisions in relation to Clause 53(1)(b) are in relation to the obligation of the employer to bargain seriously with the recognised union. If the C.I.R. has analysed the situation and has concluded that, in relation to a group of associated employers—all of them as a group—union X is entitled to recognition and that the group should bargain with it, that obligation is expressed as being a joint one and the employers as a group are told, "You must recognise as a group union X and must bargain as a group with it." That obligation has to be discharged jointly. It is the positive obligation which must be discharged by all the employers together in respect of the recommendation of the C.I.R. and it would destroy or fragment the bargaining structure recommended by the C.I.R. if the employers could bargain in penny packets in this context.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put the point very clearly, and I understand it. When one comes to what he has called the "positive obligation"—I tried to use the terms "positive "and" negative" obligations—supposng one of a group of employers says, "I cannot fulfil my positive obligation because one other member of the group will not." Is there no obligation at all on him then? It seems to me that there is not.
      The Solicitor-General: The employers are obliged to act jointly. The bargaining structure was made on the recommendation that the employers should act jointly. If one of the joint employers declined for some reason to bargain within the group, he would not be fulfilling his positive obligation to bargain. It might be that the Commission, on re-examination, would conclude that a different structure should be recommended.
      A structure with the positive obligation is closely parallel to the provision in
      1648
      Clauses 6 to 18 onwards of the Labour Government's Bill, where bargaining operations could be specified in relation to an employer or group of employers in regard to matters national, local or regional. In that situation, the Secretary of State would have made an Order requiring bargaining to be undertaken, and if such bargaining had turned out to be ineffective for the kind of reason which the hon. and learned Gentleman now suggests, one would have had to go back and get an amending order from the Secretary of State. One can visualise the breaking down of a recommended bargaining structure in the operation of a positive obligation and I am certain that one would be able to see the reason why the obligation is not being discharged.
      I hope that I have sufficiently clearly explained, in the context of the philosophy of the Bill, the contrast between positive and negative obligations and why Clause 53(1)(a) and (2) are separated from Clause 53(1)(b).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 96, in page 38, line 23, leave out "by" and insert:
      "in respect of a recommendation relating to".
      6.30 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 97, in line 25, leave out "by" and insert:
      "in respect of a recommendation relating to".
      Under these provisions, an investigation can be made into the bargaining situation by the C.I.R. so as to come up with a solution which recommends an unregistered organisation as the sole bargaining agent, but no application can be made for a statutory enforcement of that set of bargaining rights and obligations in respect of an unregistered organisation unless and until it has become registered.
      The Bill was amended when last in this House to allow the process of recommendation to go as far as the making of the recommendation of the C.I.R. in respect of an unregistered organisation but the other part of the pattern was not completely included. The provisions

      1649
      were amended in this House to provide that if at the time when the organisation applied for recognition rights to be enforced it had become registered, then it could gain advantage of an enforceable order, but they were not so amended to impose the same requirement on the unregistered organisation at the time if the employers made application in respect of it.
      Hon. Members opposite may agree or disagree with the concept that the ultimate right to have bargaining rights recognised and enforced should be confined to a registered organisation, but this particular pair of Amendments is necessary to ensure the same principle applies whether the application of enforceability for a recognition order is made by the organisation or by an employer. It is on that basis of consistency that I commend these Amendments to the House.
      Mr. Rose: It is right that these Amendments tidy, and indeed tighten, the situation, after what can only be described as the slipshod drafting with which we have become familiar as this Bill has been forced through the various stages in this House under great pressure.
      The Clause, as the Solicitor-General tried to indicate, though he rather mystified me at one point, prevented an organisation of workers from making an application as a sole bargaining agent, but allowed for an employer or third party to do so on behalf of an unregistered organisation.
      We abhor the discrimination against unions which choose not to register. It is a constant theme of this legislation that puts unregistered unions in the position in which trade unions found themselves almost a century ago. The Amendments show that the net is being drawn ever more tightly. Subsection (2) should have gone out of the window altogether. Indeed, such an attempt was made in the other place on 18th May when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, moved an Amendment. The noble Lord said:
      "Once again we are calling attention to the fact that the Government by this subsection are putting on the screw to force organisations of workers to register."
      He said that the Amendment highlighted the point that applications could not be made to the court under that subsection except by a registered trade union.
      We appeal to the Government, as did the noble Lord, to rethink this question of unregistered trade unions because of the discrimination imported into the Bill. In the other place Lord Belstead, replying to Lord Champion's Amendment, gave the game away when he said:
      "The right to apply for a ballot on the C.I.R. recommendation under Clause 46, which results in an enforceable recognition order in the event of a majority vote in favour, is one substantial new right. We cannot accept that it should be available to an organisation of workers …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 353–4.]
      What the Government are trying to do in this debate is to force unions to register whether they want to or not. It is not right for the Government to say that the unions have a choice. They are being left with no choice because of the obligation that is being laid upon them and the risk and disadvantage involved if they do not register.
      The Government are storing up a bitterness which will rebound upon them. They have not begun to understand the extent of that bitterness. There is a subdued and seething anger in the trade union movement at present which, at every turn of the screw, runs from the Upper Clyde down to the Thames. This is one more turn of the screw and will make it more likely that eventually the floodgates will burst. The Government may go on turning the screw and we shall vote against it, but later the Government will reap the whirlwind in a far more unpleasant way.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment—
      The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 226.

      Division No. 462.]

      AYES

      [6.36 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Benyon, W.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Balniel, Lord

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Batsford, Brian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Blaker, Peter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bell, Ronald

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Body, Richard

      Boscawen, Robert

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Peel, John

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Percival, Ian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Havers, Michael

      Pounder, Rafton

      Braine, Bernard

      Hay, John

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bray, Ronald

      Hayhoe, Barney

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

      Brewis, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Raison, Timothy

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hiley, Joseph

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Redmond, Robert

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Bryan, Paul

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Buck, Antony

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Howe, Hon. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Burden, F. A.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hunt, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Channon, Paul

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Chapman, Sydney

      James, David

      Rost, Peter

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Jessel, Toby

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Churchill, W. S.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Jopling, Michael

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Sharples, Richard

      Clegg, Walter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

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

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kilfedder, James

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Coombs, Derek

      King, Eveleyn (Dorset, S.)

      Simeons, Charles

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Costain, A. P.

      Kirk, Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Critchley, Julian

      Knox, David

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

      Crouch, David

      Lambton, Antony

      Soref, Harold

      Curran, Charles

      Lane, David

      Spence, John

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sproat, Iain

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dean, Paul

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Dixon, Piers

      Longden, Gilbert

      Stokes, John

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Loveridge, John

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Luce, R. N.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Tapsell, Peter

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      MacArthur, Ian

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Dykes, Hugh

      McCrindle, R. A.

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

      Eden, Sir John

      McLaren, Martin

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Eyre, Reginald

      McMaster, Stanley

      Tebbit, Norman

      Farr, John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Temple, John M.

      Fell, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Fidler, Michael

      Maddan, Martin

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Madel, David

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Marten, Neil

      Tilney, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mather, Carol

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maude, Angus

      Trew, Peter

      Foster, Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fowler, Norman

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Fox, Marcus

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Fry, Peter

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

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Gardner, Edward

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Waddington, David

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Moate, Roger

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Money, Ernle

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Monro, Hector

      Wall, Patrick

      Coodhart, Philip

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wallers, Dennis

      Goodhew, Victor

      More, Jasper

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Gorst, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gower, Raymond

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mudd, David

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Gray, Hamish

      Murton, Oscar

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Green, Alan

      Neave, Airey

      Wilkinson, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Normanton, Tom

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Nott, John

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Grylls, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Worsley, Marcus

      Gurden, Harold

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Osborn, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Mr. Keith Speed.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      1652

      1653

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Freeson, Reginald

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

      Allen, Scholefield

      Calpern, Sir Myer

      Molloy, William

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ashley, Jack

      Golding, John

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Ashton, Joe

      Gordon Walker Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Moyle, Roland

      Atkinson, Norman

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Barnes, Michael

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Barnett, Joel

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Beaney, Alan

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Oram, Bert

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Orme, Stanley

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Hardy, Peter

      Oswald, Thomas

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harper, Joseph

      Paget, R. T.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Booth, Albert

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Horam, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Bradley, Tom

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pentland, Norman

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Perry, Ernest G.

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Prescott, John

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Price, J. T. (westhoughton)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hunter, Adam

      Probert, Arthur

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Cant, R. B.

      Janner, Greville

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

      Richard, Ivor

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Cohen, Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

      Roper, John

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

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

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Judd, Frank

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Small, William

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lambie, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Lawson, George

      Stallard, A. W.

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Leonard, Dick

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Strang, Gavin

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Driberg, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Thomas, Geoffrey (Abertillery)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Tomney, Frank

      Eadie, Alex

      McBride, Neil

      Torney, Tom

      Edelman, Maurice

      McGuire, Michael

      Tuck, Raphael

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Varley, Eric G.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackie, John

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Ellis, Tom

      Maclennan, Robert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      English, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Wallace, George

      Evans, Fred

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Watkins, David

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Marquand, David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marsden, F.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Foley, Maurice

      Meacher, Michael

      Woof, Robert

      Foot, Michael

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Ford, Ben

      Mendelson, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Forrester, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Mr. William Hamling.

      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 49

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT WITH A VIEW TO WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION.
      Lords Amendment: No. 101, in page 39, line 33, leave out "a trade union" and insert, "an organisation of workers".
      6.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the said Amendment.
      I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time two further Lords Amendments:
      No. 103, in page 30, line 41, leave out "trade union" and insert, "organisation of workers".
      No. 104, in page 40, line 6, leave out "trade union" and insert, "organisation of workers".
      Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.
      The Solicitor-General: Hon. Members will see that the three Amendments are identical as a matter of words. Clause 49, to which they are directed, allows the recognised position of a union to be challenged by an agreed percentage of the employees in the bargaining unit. At present, an application for withdrawal of recognition of sole bargaining agent status can be made only in respect of a trade union, the expression "a trade union" appearing twice in subsection (1) and once in subsection (2).
      These three Amendments will replace the expression "trade union" by the expression "organisation of workers". They have two effects, one, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, benevolent, and the other—though I hesitate to say it—from their point of view malevolent.
      The benevolent effect is this. As the Clause now stands, it would not be possible for a group of workers or anyone else to challenge the recognised bargaining rights of a house union. If the only organisation which can be challenged is a registered trade union, and if recognition is accorded to an unregistered, non-independent, craven and submissive house union, as the hon. Member for Salford,
      1656
      West (Mr. Orme) describes it, the position of that house union, embraced, as the saying goes, in a sweetheart deal with the employer, could not be challenged under the Clause as it stands. The benevolent effect of the Amendment is to allow a registered union or an aggrieved minority to challenge the position of that unregistered house union.
      I come now to what I have called the malevolent effect, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, though it is only with the greatest hesitation that I acknowledge the "mal" at the beginning of that word, because it is only very mildly malevolent. The opportunity to challenge an unregistered organisation should be accorded to the disaffected minority. According to the foundations of the Government's proposals here, it would not be right if it were easier to withdraw recognition from a registered organisation than from an unregistered organisation. So the effect of the second part of this proposal is that either the one-fifth or the two-fifths—whichever be the situation—of the workers involved would be able to secure a hearing of their case if they were challenging either a house union or an unregistered union in just the same way as they would be able to challenge the position of a registered union under the Clause as it stood when it left this House.
      Mr. John Fraser: If I may deal with the malevolent aspects first, I will say that the Solicitor-General is nothing if not thorough. He resembles less, perhaps, the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords than the Lord Chancellor in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera who said "I've got them on the list and none of them be missed". In this case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not missing an organisation of workers.
      The organisation of workers cannot apply to the Court in the first place for recognition because the preceding Clause of the Bill states that it can obtain recognition only if it is a registered trade union and that if it ceases to be a registered trade union, the recognition order ceases to have effect. Therefore, the point in allowing an application to be made to the Court to end a recognition agreement can arise only in circumstances where the organisation of workers, despite the assistance of the Court, has obtained

      1657
      recognition from the employer, the recognition having been obtained without having to go through the legal procedures. Nevertheless, lest one small organisation of workers escapes, this part is being amended.
      If I may comment on the benevolent aspect of the Lords Amendments to which the Solicitor-General referred, throughout the Committee stage we tried to alter the definitions in the Bill so that an organisation of workers would never by definition be a house union. We attempted from time to time to put in the word "independent". Had those Amendments been accepted, the so-called benevolent aspects of these Lords Amendments would not be necessary.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 50

      ACTION IN PURSUANCE OF APPLICATION UNDER S. 49
      Lords Amendment: No. 105, in page 40, line 32, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert:
      ("(3) If, before that time expires, a settlement of the matters to which the application relates has been reached, the Commission shall report that fact to the Industrial Court, indicating the nature of the settlement.
      (4) If, when that time expires, no such settle ment has been reached and the application has not been withdrawn, the Industrial Court, with a view to testing the grounds of the applica tion by taking one or more ballots, shall request the Commission to consider whether—

      (a) there should be one ballot, extending to all employees for the time being comprised in the bargaining unit to which the application relates, or

      (b) for the purpose of taking ballots that bargaining unit should be divided into two or more sections, and in the case of each section a separate ballot should be taken of all the employees for the time being comprised in that section.

      (5) For the purpose of determining the question specified in subsection (4) of this section the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees comprised in the bargaining unit have interests in common, having regard in particular, in relation to each such description of employees, to—

      (a) the nature of the work which they are employed to do, and

      (b) their training, experience and professional or other qualifications.

      1658
      (6) In relation to the ballot, or (if more than one) each of the ballots, to be taken as mentioned in subsection (4) of this section the Commission shall determine whether it is to be taken by the Commission or is to be taken under the supervision of the Commission by some other body, and in either case what arrangements would best secure that the ballot will be properly conducted and that the voting in the ballot will be kept secret; and the Commission shall thereupon arrange for one or more ballots to be taken in accordance with their conclusions under subsections (4) and (5) of this section and under this subsection.
      (7) The question on which any ballot under this section is to be taken—

      (a) where it extends to all employees for the time being comprised in the bargaining unit to which the application relates, shall be whether the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel specified in the application should continue to be recognised as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit;

      (b) where it is limited to a particular section of that bargaining unit, shall be whether that section should continue to be included in a bargaining unit for which that organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel is so recognised.

      (8) After one or more ballots have been taken under this section in pursuance of an application under section 47 of this Act, the Commission shall report the results of the ballot or ballots to the Industrial Court, to the applicant, and to every employer, organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel specified in that application.")
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I understand that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following three Lords Amendments:
      No. 106, in Clause 51, page 41, line 22, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
      ("() Where a ballot under section 50 of this Act has been taken on the question specified in subsection (7)(a) of that section, and the result of the ballot, as reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court, is that a majority of the employees voting in the ballot voted against the continuance of the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent for the bargaining unit, the Industrial Court shall make an order directing the employer or employers—

      (a) to cease to recognise the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent for the bargaining unit, and

      (b) not to accord such recognition to it at any time during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot was reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court.

      1659
      () Where such a ballot, limited to a section of a bargaining unit, has been taken on the question specified in subsection (7)(b) of section 50 of this Act, and the result of the ballot, as reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court, is that a majority of the employees voting in the ballot voted against that section continuing to be included in the bargaining unit for which the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel is recognised as sole bargaining agent, the Industrial Court shall make an order directing the employer or employers—

      (a) to cease to recognise the organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent for that section of the bargaining unit, and

      (b) not to accord such recognition to it at any time during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot was reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court.")

      No. 256, in page 111, line 36, at end insert new Clause K (Review of ballot taken under Part II or Part III).
      No. 311, in Schedule 3, page 133, line 14, at end insert:
      (" . In so far as the rules make provision for the purposes of section (Review of ballot taken under Part II or Part III) of this Act, they shall include provision—

      (a) as to the circumstances in which, and the parties by whom, an application can be made to the Industrial Court for an order under that section;

      (b) as to any circumstances in which the Industrial Court is to be empowered to make such an order without any such application; and

      (c) as to the persons who are to be, or may be made, parties to any proceedings before the Industrial Court in which (whether in pursuance of an application or otherwise) the Court considers the making of such an order.")

      The purpose of Lords Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 is twofold. First, we wish to clarify the procedure which has to be followed by the National Industrial Relations Court and the Commission on Industrial Relations in Clause 50. Secondly, we want to make further provision for the safeguarding of minority interests when ballots are taken on withdrawal of recognition.
      Perhaps I might say first a few words about the necessity for clarifying the procedure in Clause 50. For a number of reasons, it did not seem to us that the procedure at present laid down was very clear or as consistent as we would like. In particular, it did not make it clear that when the C.I.R. decided that the ballot should be limited to a certain section of the bargaining unit, each section
      1660
      of that unit should be separately balloted. This seems to us obviously to be desirable. If only one section of the bargaining unit were balloted, the position of the bargaining agent might be in doubt in the remaining part of the bargaining unit which had not been balloted. It therefore seemed to us that by far the best course would be to require, as the Amendments do, that the ballot should be taken in all parts of the unit so that the position of the bargaining agent was left in no doubt in any part of the unit.
      The reason why we have provision in Clause 50 for ballots to be held in part of the bargaining unit is to enable the C.I.R. to hold a ballot of a dissident minority group within the bargaining unit which feels that it should not remain within that unit. In such a hypothetical case, the remainder of the bargaining unit could probably be quite satisfied with the performance of the established bargaining agent. It seems to us right that the remainder, too, should be balloted so that their position is left in no doubt. This means, however, that the question on which the ballot should be taken ought not to be whether the union should cease to be the bargaining agent, as Clause 50 at present provides, but rather whether the union should continue to be the bargaining agent for that unit. That is the main clarification in this respect which is made by these Amendments.
      The second purpose of the Amendments is to write into Clause 50 special safeguards for minorities. This point has been of some concern, as was the matter which we discussed a few Amendments ago. I think that there is now no doubt that the new subsection (5) will go a good way towards meeting any genuine fears of those minorities who felt that they might not receive proper treatment under these provisions.
      Those are the reasons for Lords Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 but perhaps I might say a final word about them. They may appear to be more extensive than they are. We could have achieved these purposes by a string of small Amendments to the existing subsections but we thought it better to introduce new subsections rather than a long string of smaller Amendments. We hope that at

      1661
      least this makes them easier to see and understand.
      Lords Amendment No. 256 is a new Clause which comes in after Clause 15, and Lords Amendment No. 311 is an Amendment to Schedule 3. They arise because, on a number of occasions in Committee in another place, it was pointed out by Opposition spokesmen, notably by Lord Gardiner, that the provisions of the Bill which required ballots to be conducted by the C.I.R. or under the supervision of the C.I.R. did not afford any opportunity for appeal against a reported result of a ballot, nor did they give the Industrial Court any other option than to accept the result as reported even though there might be circumstances in which it was evident that a mistake had been made in the conduct or in the reporting of a ballot. It was, therefore, urged that there should be statutory procedure for rectifying mistakes made by the C.I.R. or by any other body conducting a ballot under the supervision of the C.I.R.
      The Lord Chancellor in another place accepted the argument that the prerogative writ procedure would not enable a simple error of fact to be corrected by way of an order of the Divisional Court and he accepted that it would be desirable to enable mistakes made in the conduct of statutory ballots to be challenged in the Industrial Court. The Amendments are intended to deal with that situation. I hope that the House will feel that it is right to provide this provision for supervision and appeal against ballots which may be thought to be wrong in some way or other.
      The proposed Amendments will only apply, however, to ballots under the provisions of Part II and Part III of the Bill. Thus, it is not intended that the new provisions should apply in respect of strike ballots in emergency circumstances under Clause 138. So there will be no provision for any party to complain to the Industrial Court of a mistake made in the conduct of a strike ballot, nor, as a result, can a court order a fresh ballot. Superficially this looked wrong, and I should like to explain, I hope satisfactorily, why we are taking this course.
      7.0 p.m.
      We have taken this course because of the special circumstances surrounding an emergency strike ballot and the overriding
      1662
      purpose of such a ballot. We have made it plain that the ballot is intended purely to assess the strength of support for the industrial action taken, or to be taken, by allowing the workers concerned to express their wishes. When the result of the ballot is reported to the court, the order is effectively discharged. Since the power to take further action, whether by the court or by the parties concerned, does not in any way depend on the result of a ballot, and the court has no further statutory powers under the strike ballot provisions, we did not think that it was necessary or even right to give the court the same statutory powers to review a ballot as in the cases about which I spoke earlier where the result of the ballot imposed a legal obligation upon one or more of the parties. There is this big distinction between these ballots. One is an opinion-testing procedure with no liability flowing from it; the other is on the substance from which obligations and liabilities might flow.
      Furthermore, in order to protect the interests of the parties, especially those of the workers concerned, and to remove any possibility of abuse of the strike ballot provisions, Clause 143(7) makes it plain that after the principal order under Clause 138 takes effect, the court shall not entertain any application relating to the same industrial dispute or any other industrial dispute which appears to fall within the scope of the original one. Nor, I should stress, does the court have any power to extend the period within which the result of the ballot must be reported. This means that the period in which people are restrained from organising a strike while the ballot takes place can similarly not be extended. An important factor to take into account is the need, when there is a strike ballot, for speed and for there to be no possibility of the period being capable of extension. Therefore, we saw no reason for giving the court power to quash a ballot when there are no powers available to it to continue restraint on organising industrial action.
      I think that is all that I need say at this stage in explanation of the purposes of these Amendments. However, with the permission of the House, I shall do my best to answer any questions which may be raised during the debate.
      Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State has explained how ballots will or will not be conducted in an agency or sole bargaining unit situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) quoted from Gilbert and Sullivan when discussing a previous Amendment. When I was in industry I worked at one time with a shop steward who when I used the term "Gilbertian"—I do not know whether he understood what I meant—always used to say when things got chaotic, "Send for Gilbert and Sullivan".
      When we try to reduce industrial relations, the question of agency shop and recognition of a sole bargaining agent, to a ballot form within industry, we begin to realise how complicated the situation will become. This is a completely new situation. We have had no information. Some of my noble Friends in another place asked how these ballots would be conducted, who would be responsible within the plants for conducting them, how they would be counted, and what procedure would be used. We have received no satisfactory answer from the Government.
      We move to a unique situation when we come to Amendments Nos. 256 and 311. My noble Friend Lord Gardiner, with his legal knowledge and feeling of justice, asked in the other place whether there should be some check on these undefined procedures which are laid down in the Bill.
      I should like to ask a specific question arising from new Clause K. Subsection (2), provides:
      "If, in accordance with Industrial Court rules made for the purposes of this section, the Industrial Court finds, in the case of a ballot for which this section applies, that the report made to the Court by the Commission as to the result of the ballot was incorrect, and that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report so as to rectify the error without requiring a further ballot to be taken."
      On what precedent is this situation created whereby somebody can alter a ballot which has taken place? Will this body have to report on the altered ballot? Will the participants in the ballot have a right of access to find out who has altered it and why it has been altered?
      I do not think that in the British Constitution there is anything comparable
      1664
      with that subsection which gives the body to which the ballot has been referred the right contained in that subsection. Paragraph (a) provides:
      "the Court may make an order amending the report accordingly, and
      (b) where such an order has been made, the report shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it had been made as amended by the order."
      The Secretary of State has an obligation to tell the House exactly what is meant by this and what the precedents are.
      I note that Lord Gardiner, who had asked for some form of longstop, was unfortunately not present in the other place when Lord Drumalbyn brought this proposal forward. There was an exceedingly short debate on it in the other place. This is a cardinal point. I do not know what my lawyer Friends feel about the legal aspects, but it seems an extremely ominous proposal.
      We are opposed to the Industrial Court in its entirety because of the legalistic powers and functions which it will be given. We are certainly opposed to the idea that it should have these overriding powers. It is interesting to note that it will only deal with Parts II and III of the Bill; it will not deal with strike ballots of a national character. We wonder about the accuracy of these proposals in this regard. However, we are not asking for these long-stop proposals; we are opposed to ballots in their entirety.
      Amendment No. 311 to Schedule 3 underwrites the main purpose of Amendment No. 256. I think that we are entitled to a reply from the Minister on the whole question of the operation of these ballots.
      Taking this a stage further, I think that to give the Industrial Court the right to alter a ballot is to provide for direct interference by the State.
      Mr. R. Carr: It is not the State.
      Mr. Orme: The Minister says that it is not the State, but under the Bill the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, maintains a large amount of political power by which, under various Clauses, he can give orders and directions—
      Mr. Carr: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to give orders to the Court. The Court is the

      1665
      equivalent of a High Court. It is not under the thumb of any Minister. It is because we believe it right that these matters are better argued in public, in a court, than behind closed doors in the Ministry, which is political and controlled by the State, that we are proposing, amongst other things, this kind of procedure.
      Mr. Orme: All I can say is that the Minister has power to direct the attention of the Court to certain practices. However the right hon. Gentleman puts it, this is seen in the trade union movement as a political structure. One sees the Industrial Court coming into collective bargaining with regard to the setting up of an agency shop and, in particular, deciding who is the sole bargaining agent within an establishment. For those reasons, the Opposition hope that the Minister will answer the points that have been put to him.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: When one looks at subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause one sees there a serious defect. This is not the kind of long-stop for which Lord Gardiner was asking. Something else has been put in its place, no doubt through inadvertence rather than malevolence.
      Let me put it this way. The error to be corrected is either material, or it is immaterial. If it is immaterial, there is no need for this machinery. If it is material, it can relate to only one thing, and that is the result of the ballot. If the Commission's report is so misguided that it says there is a majority for, when it should have been there is a majority against, it is almost inconceivable that this machinery will be required. If there is anything else, it is difficult to see how it will be material. I should like the Government's reaction to that.
      Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is worried that the Court may change the result of a ballot. As I read the Clause, it is not to the effect at all, but relates to the report on the result of a ballot. Perhaps I may use an example from our debate a few days ago. It was my impression that the result of the miners' ballot on the strike vote was 57 per cent. If I had been in the position of the Commission, I should have reported that to the Court, but it transpired later that the correct
      1666
      figure was 55 per cent. It would have been pointless to hold a second ballot for the sake of correcting the inaccuracy of my report. That is how I read the Clause, and I take it to be correct.
      If strike ballots are to be left out of the new Clause in respect of all appeals to the Industrial Court, may we be told what the mechanics are for dealing with any alleged irregularities in the conduct of emergency strike ballots?
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. R. Carr: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
      The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Ore) said that nobody knew how the ballots were to be conducted. They are a new thing, and one has to start somewhere, at some time. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed to all ballots in this connection, and I shall come to that in a moment. But if one is not opposed to the possibility of ballots in circumstances of this kind, one has to make a start at some time.
      Until the C.I.R. starts to operate, and to study the matter, it is not possible to lay down in legislation, or to explain in advance, how this will be done. This is one of the difficult tasks which the C.I.R. has ahead of it. We shall have to watch very carefully how it does this job. It will have to develop its techniques and expertise on this issue. When something has never been done before, one cannot easily say in advance exactly how it is to be done. But if one says that that is a debarring factor, one never starts on anything new.
      The hon. Gentleman complained about the complexity of these proposals. That is something which often crops up. If we are honest, we will admit that all law is complicated when one looks at it. Even if I take the point, as I do, about the previous Administration's Bill, that it was never debated, and never amended, and therefore we cannot say that we saw the Bill in its final form, I still say that if one wants to see a complicated Bill, complicated beyond any chance of being simplified by Amendment, one has only to look at the right hon. Lady's Bill that was published just before the General Election last year. As my hon. and learned Friend said during a recent debate, it took twice the number of

      1667
      Clauses to deal with unfair dismissal as the present Bill takes.
      We have to accept that when dealing with a matter of this kind, or with almost any matter, the law relating to it, studied in a vacuum, always seems extremely complicated, and even when studied in practice will be complicated, but that is because it has to be fairly precise and, as far as possible, cope with all the possibilities that one can foresee.
      The main point that has been raised arises on subsections (2) and (3) of the new Clause, where the Court is given power to rectify a mistake without taking a new ballot. If one says it like that, it sounds appalling, but if one reads the whole of subsections (2) and (3) the whole thing comes into somewhat clearer focus and a rather different perspective.
      All that subsection (2) says is that where the Court decides that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report so as to rectify the error without requiring a further ballot to be taken it can do so. The circumstance envisaged is that there is a genuine miscount and all parties are agreed that that is so, because for example a ballot box had been left out and was subsequently found. In those circumstances it seems totally unnecessary to go through the whole procedure again, but the parties concerned will have full rights to go before the Court, and if they do not think that what was done was equitable, and that another ballot ought to be taken, that argument can be made before the Court.
      The next subsection provides that where the Court takes a different view from that taken in the circumstances to which I have just referred it has power to quash the ballot and any decisions arising out of it, and then one has to start again. I should have thought that if, in an industrial situation, all parties were satisfied, and the Court was satisfied, that the error was of the order that I have agreed, it would be sensible for the Court to take that action. We must remember that this Court has the status of a High Court. It is not some minor body. If we cannot in this country trust a body of this kind to decide whether, in the circumstances, something is just and equitable, and that the error is not one which requires a new ballot, I do not think that
      1668
      we shall ever be able to trust anybody on anything.
      Mr. Orme: One thing that one learns about parliamentary drafting is that it is not what the Minister says that counts. What counts is what is in the Bill. What matters is how the Court will interpret the words in this Measure when it becomes an Act. That is what is important, not the words of the Minister, myself or anybody else. Those words, taken on their own, constitute a changed constitutional situation, as I see it.
      Mr. Carr: Of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that no Minister from this Dispatch Box can say how a court under our constitution will interpret an Act. We can only declare our intentions and try to assure the House that we think we have got words which will put our intentions into practice. If the courts interpret an Act contrary to Parliament's intentions, that, I understand, is one of the most frequent reasons why Parliament sometimes enacts amending legislation.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no constitutional precedent for this kind of juidcial interference in a democratic vote?
      Mr. Carr: That may be true. We are starting a new type of procedure and it is of a different order of magnitude from that of elections of ourselves to this House and therefore the formation of the Government of this country.
      The ballot is going to be conducted under the auspices of the C.I.R., and not by the employer or the union or anybody associated with the dispute. One should remember that. In addition, the Court has to look at complaints about the ballot having been wrong for some reason. If, and only if, the Court, having heard the case, believes that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report without ordering a new ballot, it is given power to do so.
      I should have thought that when we are dealing, as we are, with circumstances probably involving an industrial dispute, as much speed as we can achieve is necessary. This seems a sensible provision to make in a case where, for example, all the parties agree that the ballot is wrong because there has been a miscount arising from the temporary loss of a ballot

      1669
      box I would have thought this was not a bad precedent to set in this very well defined field, particularly as subsection (3) makes it very clear that if the Industrial Court is not satisfied that it would be just and equitable to take into account a genuine mistake and to record it without causing everybody the trouble of having a new ballot, the Court has power to quash the ballot and start again. As I say, I think this is a reasonable provision. But the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) is right; I think this is a precedent and it is, therefore, a matter about which obviously there can be differences of opinion.
      Perhaps I may say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler). As I explained originally, the strike ballot in an emergency situation is of a different order—a minor order in one sense—because no obligations or duties or liabilities flow from that ballot. Therefore, while we want these ballots to be accurate, it is not the same as other ballots from which liabilities and obligations flow.
      Mr. Bidwell: We understand the Minister's differentiation between the strike ballot and the other form of ballot. I assume that financial liability would not arise in the second place but that financial liability of some kind would arise in the first place. Are the Government handicapped by the absence of the C.I.R. and by their consequent inability to take soundings from it?
      Mr. Carr: I am not quite sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about financial liability.
      Mr. Bidwell: I mean in the sense that one pays for accounting clerks in the conduct of ballots at elections. How are these ballots to be conducted and at whose expense?
      Mr. Carr: The cost of the C.I.R. and of its work, including the conduct of ballots, will fall on public funds. The parties will not be involved in any way.
      So far as the strike ballot is concerned, I am advised that in theory the High Court could entertain an application for an order to quash the result of one ballot and order another one. I am told that that is the theoretical position. I am also advised that since no legal result
      1670
      flows from a strike ballot, it is at least possible, if not probable, that the High Court might in practice decline to issue such an order. So I have to say to my hon. Friend that I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I have a very satisfactory answer to his question.
      We have to decide at any given moment on the number of safeguards that we put into a particular procedure, and we felt it was right to put the safeguards, the appeals and so forth, into this ballot procedure but we did not think it was right to do so in the case where no legal liabilities flow. In any case, in practical terms, the idea of a strike ballot is to provide an opportunity for workers to express their opinion in a serious national situation where there is evidence of different views among the workers affected in the dispute. If that opinion is challenged, it will carry less authority. It is the natural authority which a ballot of this kind will or will not carry which will have its influence. But it will not commit anybody to any liability or any action. To imagine that in an industrial dispute it would be practicable or helpful to say "Stop" and have it all over again, even if the ballot were suspect in any way, would be counter-productive rather than productive.
      Mr. Adam Butler: Do I understand that in the case of alleged serious misconduct there is no right of appeal? May I take an extreme example where the ballot is so close that the majority required is one or two only. If there is an allegation of misconduct, is there still no right of appeal?
      Mr. Carr: There is the theoretical right to go to the High Court. However, I see my hon. Friend's point and I have said that I cannot properly satisfy it because we have had to make a judgment as to whether it would be right and helpful to set up the machinery in order to satisfy him. The ballots will be conducted by the C.I.R. who will become expert and professional in conducting them. I sincerely hope and believe that ballots conducted by a body such as the C.I.R. will command respect and will have integrity, and that there will not be grounds for charges of gross misconduct and so forth.
      Nevertheless the authority of these ballots is only a natural authority. If it is so close as to be a matter of a few

      1671
      votes one way or the other, I do not think it will help very much to resolve the dispute in question. I believe it could be helpful in resolving the dispute in question if such a ballot in those circumstances showed a pretty clear decision of opinion for or against. But if it is really narrowly poised, and since no natural rights flow from it, I doubt whether it would have much influence.
      On balance, we decided that to provide machinery for questioning this sort of ballot, in view of the time delay that would be involved in that, with the possibility of holding it again—all this happening while an industrial dispute was active—would nullify the whole procedure. While I wish that I could satisfy my hon. Friend, we felt that there were some strong practical reasons for not providing the machinery, realising that this was a ballot which, according to the natural authority that it commanded, might be influential and might be influential for the good.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said about the other Amendments, he has done nothing to assuage my anxieties about No. 256. I am sure that if he has not satisfied me he has not satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who also had some vocal support from some of my other hon. Friends. I share their view that, while the right hon. Gentleman's words are no doubt offered in good faith, it is for the Court to interpret the black and white of the Bill.
      While I accept his view that common sense suggests that, if all the parties agree, there is no reason why they should not make the alteration, there is nothing about this in the Bill. What he proposes would put an extraordinary and unprecedented power in the hands of the Court. If and when we reach Amendment No. 256, we shall therefore seek to divide on it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 107, in page 42, line 26 at end insert:
      "() the application is made by the organisation of workers in respect of which the
      1672
      order was made, or, where the order was made in respect of a joint negotiating panel, the application is made by an organisation of workers represented on that panel."
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Under the Clause as it stood, after an order had been made by the Court withdrawing a right to recognition, the Court was debarred from entertaining any subsequent application for two years from any other organisation of workers or trade union. The Government did not intend the Clause to have that effect. The Amendment is introduced to limit the bar on any subsequent application during the two years only to the organisation of workers from which the recognition has been withdrawn.
      The Amendment has the entirely benevolent effect of allowing a union which has not been displaced by reason of a withdrawal order to make application for recognition at any time thereafter, even though such an order has been made. In other words, it will limit the bar on a subsequent application simply any solely to the union from which recognition has been withdrawn. On that basis, I commend it to the House—I hope, without fear of contradiction.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 53

      UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCEDURES
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 110, in page 44, line 38, at end insert:
      "(3A) Subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to an order made under section 48 of this Act in respect of two or more associated employers, but for that purpose shall have effect as if—

      (a) any reference in those subsections to the employer were a reference to any of those employers;

      (b) in subsections (1)(a) and (2) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references to carrying on such bargaining either alone or jointly with any other employer or employers comprised in the order;

      (c) in subsection (1)(b) references to carrying on collective bargaining were references

      1673
      to carrying on such bargaining jointly with the other employer or employers comprised in the order.

      (3B) In relation to an order which is made subject to a reservation under section 48(1A) of this Act, nothing in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as applying to collective bargaining in respect of matters which, by virtue of that reservation, are excepted from the exclusive
      negotiating rights of the sole bargaining agent."
      Motion made and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:
      The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 220.

      Division No. 463.]

      AYES

      [7.34 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Luce, R. N.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacArthur, Ian

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Foster, Sir John

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fowler, Norman

      McLaren, Martin

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fox, Marcus

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

      McMaster, Stanley

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Balniel, Lord

      Gardner, Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Batsford, Brian

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Madel, David

      Bell, Ronald

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Marten, Neil

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Benyon, W.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gorst, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Biffen, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Green, Alan

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Body, Richard

      Grieve, Percy

      Moate, Roger

      Boscawen, Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Money, Ernle

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Braine, Bernard

      Gurden, Harold

      More, Jasper

      Bray, Ronald

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mudd, David

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Murton, Oscar

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Neave, Airey

      Bryan, Paul

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nott, John

      Buck, Antony

      Hastings, Stephen

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Havers, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Burden, F. A.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hay, John

      Osborn, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Channon, Paul

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hiley, Joseph

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

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

      Peel, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Percival, Ian

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hordern, Peter

      Pounder, Rafton

      Clegg, Walter

      Hornby, Richard

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

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

      Coombs, Derek

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Raison, Timothy

      Costain, A. P.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Hunt, John

      Redmond, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Curran, Charles

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Dean, Paul

      Jopling, Michael

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Dixon, Piers

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kilfedder, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Drayson, C. B.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Kirk, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lambton, Antony

      Scott, Nicholas

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lane, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Farr, John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Sharples, Richard

      Fell, Anthony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

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

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fidler, Michael

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

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

      Temple, John M.

      Walters, Dennis

      Soref, Harold

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Speed, Keith

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Spence, John

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Sproat, Iain

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Trew, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Stokes, John

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Sutcliffe, John

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Worsley, Marcus

      Tapsell, Peter

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Waddington, David

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

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Mr. Tim Fortescue and

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wall, Patrick

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)

      McBride, Neil

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McGuire, Michael

      Allen, Scholefield

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington

      Mackie, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Foley, Maurice

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ashley, Jack

      Foot, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Ashton, Joe

      Ford, Ben

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Atkinson, Norman

      Forrester, John

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

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marquand, David

      Beaney, Alan

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marsden, F.

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Garrett, W. E.

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Meacher, Michael

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Golding, John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mendelson, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Gourlay, Harry

      Millan, Bruce

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Booth, Albert

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Molloy, William

      Bradley, Tom

      Hardy, Peter

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hattersley, Roy

      Moyle, Roland

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

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Murray, Ronald King

      Cant, R, B.

      Horam, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Carmichael, Neil

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Oram, Bert

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Orme, Stanley

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Paget, R. T.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hunter, Adam

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Cronin, John

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pendry, Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pentland, Norman

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      John, Brynmor

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

      Prescott, John

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Delargy, H. J.

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Doig, Peter

      Kelley, Richard

      Roper, John

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rose, Paul B.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Driberg, Tom

      Latham, Arthur

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lawson, George

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Leonard, Dick

      Silverman, Julius

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Small, William

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Evans, Fred

      Loughlin, Charles

      Spearing, Nigel

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stallard, A. W.

      1676

      1677

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Tomney, Frank

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Woof, Robert

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

      Wallace, George

      Thomas, Jeffery (Abertillery)

      Watkins, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Tinn, James

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr. William Hamling.

      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 54

      GENERAL DUTY OF EMPLOYERS TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION
      Lords Amendment: No. 115, in page 45, line 29, after ("of") insert ("all the stages of").
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment was moved in another place by the official Opposition and accepted by the Government. The intention of the Clause is that the employer's obligation to disclose information should start at the stage when management and unions get together to discuss definite proposals for a change in the terms and conditions of employment or a procedure agreement, but not before then. The requirement to disclose information is, therefore, limited by subsection (1) to the circumstances of collective bargaining between the employer's and trade union's representatives.
      Moreover, collective bargaining is defined in Clause 158(1) as meaning
      "negotiations with respect to terms and conditions of employment, or with respect to the making, variation or rescission of a procedure agreement, or with respect to any matter to which in accordance with this section a procedure agreement can relate".
      This precise definition is needed because the Industrial Court will have to pay regard to it when failure to comply with Clause 54 results in complaints under Clause 98.
      It was always the Government's intention that the employer's obligation to disclose information should exist at all stages of collective bargaining, as defined. Indeed, we were confident that that would be the case under the Clause as drafted; but to put the matter entirely beyond doubt we are happy to recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 116, in page 46, line 6, after "be" insert "or be confirmed".
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 117, in page 46, line 10, at end insert "or confirming".
      Mr. Harold Walker: We have no objection to that course.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: This Amendment concerns the situation when a union has received information orally from an employer but at some later stage in the same round of collective bargaining decides that it requires that information in writing. In this situation it would be anomalous to deny the union the right to written information which it could have received previously, had it wished, and the Amendment would write the union's entitlement into the Bill, which we believe is a desirable thing to do.
      This right will extend only to information which the employer is obliged to disclose under Clause 54 and will not cover additional confidential information which the employer might disclose as an earnest of trust and good faith.
      Amendment No. 117 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 116 being accepted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 55

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES BY MAJOR EMPLOYERS
      Lords Amendment: No. 118, in page 46, line 26, after "which" insert:
      "on any date within a financial year of the undertaking".
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Perhaps it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following Lords Amendments: No. 120, in page 46, line 27, after "persons" insert:
      "other than excepted persons".
      No. 121, line 30, leave out "periodical statements" and insert:
      "in respect of that financial year a statement".
      No. 122, line 32, leave out from "shall" to end of line 34, and insert:
      "be issued not later than six months after the end of the financial year to which it relates".
      No. 123, in line 40, leave out from "relates" to end of line 5 on page 47, and insert:
      "and who is not on that date an excepted person".
      No. 125, in page 47, line 36, at end insert:
      ("() In this section "financial year", in relation to an undertaking, means a period for which the accounts of the undertaking are made up (including any such period part of which is before and part after the commencement of this Act); and for the purposes of this section a person is an excepted person on any date if on that date—

      (a) he is employed under a contract which normally involves employment for less than twenty-one hours weekly, or

      (b) he has been employed in the undertaking in question for less than thirteen weeks, or

      (c) he is outside Great Britain and is a person who under his contract of employment ordinarily works outside Great Britain.")

      Mr. Harold Walker: We have no objection to that course.
      Mr. Carr: These Amendments are designed to clarify Clause 55 and also to stop one possible loophole. Although they achieve more than one object, they are so closely linked that they must be considered together. They fall into two groups. The first concerns the calculation of the number of persons referred to in subsection (1); that is, 500 as written in the Bill, but reduced to a smaller number by a later Amendment. Unlike Clause 54, this Clause applies only to employers with more than the qualifying number of employees. The present drafting leaves in some doubt the manner in which and the time at which this figure is to be calculated.
      Amendment No. 118 therefore provides that all employers who employ more than the minimum qualifying number of people at any one time in the financial year come within the scope of the Clause. Correspondingly, Amendments Nos. 120 and 123 make it clear that temporary, part-time and overseas workers are not to be included in the determination of the qualifying number. The reason is that these employees do not have the same degree of interest in the undertaking as have the normal full-time employees. It therefore seemed to us logical that they should not be taken into account in determining which undertakings should come within the scope of the Clause.
      Agriculture provides a practical example, though there are other industries. Certain agricultural enterprises may well employ, and often employ, a large number of people for a short time in the year, during the harvest, but for most of the year employ considerably smaller numbers which would not anywhere near bring them within the qualifying numbers. The hotel and catering industry provides us with another example.
      The thinking behind the Clause is that the need for statements and other forms of good communication is greatest in the largest enterprises. That is what has influenced our thinking on this question of size, and also on the question of the sort of people who should be included when calculating whether or not an undertaking qualifies under the Clause. We think that it would be anomalous to bring employers within the scope of the Clause merely because their activities required large numbers of people for a small part of the year.
      It is right that this information should be made available, and we have no sympathy with those companies which complain about the trouble caused by having to give information to their employees. But we should be careful before causing that amount of trouble to undertakings merely because for some special reason and for a very short time of the year they have a very much higher number of employees than they have for most of the year.
      Amendments Nos. 118, 121 and 122 and part of Amendment No. 125 are

      1681
      intended to stop a loophole. The Clause as drafted only requires periodical statements which relate to the previous year, and it would, therefore, be technically possible, we realised, for an employer to evade the whole spirit of the Clause by issuing a statement perhaps once every seven years, so long as when he did issue the statement it applied to the previous year. The obvious intention is that the statement should be issued annually. While we did not envisage that many employers would attempt to escape the intended obligation, we felt it right to eliminate this technical loophole.
      The financial year has been chosen in preference to the calendar year because we think it more suited to the custom and accounting practice of individual employers. We expect, in any case, that much of the information in the statements will be financial, even though not all of it is, and so can be based more conveniently on the undertaking's financial year.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 119, in page 46, line 27, leave out '500' and insert '350'.
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, leave out '350' and insert '50'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment we can take that to Lords Amendment No. 124, in line 1, leave out '350' and insert '50'.
      Mr. Walker: I hope to deal with this matter very briefly because we have here a clear, straightforward, simple issue. The Lords Amendment initially provided that under the disclosure requirements the number should be reduced from 500 to 350. We welcome that. Then my noble Friends sought to reduce the number to 200, but we have since had representations that revelation of information is of equal importance irrespective of the numbers in the establishment. Why should people be discriminated against just because they work in a small establishment rather than in a big place? It seems to us to be just as easy, if not easier, for a small employer to provide
      1682
      the information as it is for a large employer.
      In reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in another place I noted the intervention of the noble Lord who is, I think, the Leader of the Liberals there—Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who said that he saw no reason why the obligation should not apply to every firm. He described the obligation as the absolute basis of good industrial relationship no matter what the size of the firm.
      The noble Lord having been so anxious to reduce the numbers, we had hoped on this present occasion to have the support of Liberal hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] It is a matter of deep regret that not only have the Liberal hon. Members not graced our debate this evening but, as far as I can recall, they have—with the very eloquent and useful exception of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—been absent almost throughout this stage of the Bill's progress. We note the absence of Liberal hon. Members who would have been able to support us in seeking to extend this beneficial provision to smaller employments. The difficulties that were once thought to exist are not, I am convinced, any longer a real obstacle.
      Mr. R. Carr: With the spirit of what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said, and with his ultimate intention, I have no reason to disagree. This is one of those maddening cases where Governments often tend to be stuffy for what they conceive, rightly or wrongly, to be sound, cautious reasons not only of administration but of feeling one's way. I have always been a very strong believer in the desirability of giving the people who work in an under taking the maximum possible information about that undertaking's affairs and its more general prospects and plans—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Including U.C.S.
      Mr. Carr: One of the troubles there was that the employers did not themselves know what they were doing, so they were not exactly the people to tell their employees.
      As I was saying, I believe in giving information. Nevertheless, this is a new concept of general practice. Many companies, large, medium-sized and small,

      1683
      have done this for a long time. Unfortunately, in terms of the total number of companies, this is still the exception rather than the rule. Once the Bill becomes law, it will become increasingly the rule rather than the exception.
      8.0 p.m.
      There will be some need for experiment, for trial and error, in the best ways of giving the sort of information which is most meaningful to employees. One could simply say that every company, or at least every public company, should send a copy of its annual report to all its employees. That would be better than nothing; but I sometimes find annual reports difficult to understand. They vary in their comprehensibility.
      There is no question of wanting to give employees less information than shareholders, far from it; but time will be needed for experiment and for trial and error about the most meaningful ways in which to give information to employees once it becomes a statutory requirement to do so rather than something which companies have developed, as I think rightly, as a matter of good practice.
      We feel that we ought to start rather cautiously. As we believe that the main need for this provision is in the larger companies and as by definition the larger companies are of a relatively small number, we think it right to start with a relatively small number of larger companies and to learn by experience, but subsection (7) of the Clause empowers the Secretary of State to vary the figure when experience suggests that is desirable. It would be my intention to vary the figure downwards as quickly as possible.
      My first judgment was that we should make 500 employees the minimum qualifying figure. As a result of pressure in another place, where 200 was suggested by the Opposition, as one noble Lord pointed out with great skill, we arithmetically exactly split the difference between 500 and 200 and came up with the figure of 350, which was acceptable to another place. I must advise the House that, to start with, this is as low a number as we should reasonably have and to go down in size would be greatly to increase the number of undertakings involved.
      1684
      I believe that we should get the practice needed with this small number of undertakings in the first year or two and learn by trial and error before greatly increasing the number. I have to admit that this is a matter of judgment. This is our judgment, and I advise the House to stick to it. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Doncaster that I am in complete agreement with the spirit of what he says, and, for what it is worth, I assure the House that it is my intention to use the powers of subsection (7) to reduce the number sooner rather than later.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: Did we not have an Amendment from the Government to postpone the date upon which the giving of information became obligatory in certain cases? The right hon. Gentleman then said what he has just repeated about the large number of small companies, and one understands that. But could he now be more explicit? The Lords Amendment would reduce the number of employees from 500 to 350, and my hon. Friends are asking for an even smaller number. Is 350 the kind of figure which the right hon. Gentleman has now power to postpone? He was not able to say earlier what kind of figure he had in mind, and he was able to give reasons for that, but we are now discussing figures and it is important for the House to know at what stage the employers we have in mind will be bound to give information to their employees.
      At the moment, no matter what the figure is, it is apparently still the case that workers in a comparatively small factory will not get this information for some time. Until the right hon. Gentleman believes that the first stage is on course or has been accomplished, he will not make it obligatory for employers to give this information. We shall not know at what stage the giving of information by employers will be mandatory until we know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. For how long will he operate the power of deferment which he obtained in that earlier Amendment?
      I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for information, especially in small firms. The bigger firms do not have as much difficulty about getting this kind of information, but the smaller are most backward in organisation. We do not yet know at what stage the firms of

      1685
      350 employees and fewer will be able to ask employers for information.
      Mr. R. Carr: I assure the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) that I intend in this instance to move straight to the figure of 350 and not to get down to it in stages. I cannot tell him precisely when, because once the Bill is law there will be many areas about which I shall have to consult, and this is clearly one where I shall have to consult closely with industry and the trade unions about the sort of regulations
      needed to get the sort of information which is available to employers and useful to and wanted by employees. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall go straight to the 350 and as soon as possible thereafter use the regulating powers in subsection (7) to reduce the number still further.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 247.

      Division No. 464.]

      AYES

      [8.09 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Allen, Scholefield

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

      Loughlin, Charles

      Archer, Peler (Rowey Regis)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Ashley, Jack

      Foley, Maurice

      McBride, Neil

      Ashton, Joe

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael

      Atkinson, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mackie, John

      Barnett, Joel

      Freeson, Reginald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Beaney, Alan

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Garrett, W. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Marquand, David

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marsden, F.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Meacher, Michael

      Booth, Albert

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mendelson, John

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Millan, Bruce

      Bradley, Tom

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Harper, Joseph

      Molloy, William

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Moyle, Roland

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Horam, John

      Murray, Ronald King

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Ogden, Eric

      Cohen, Stanley

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Coleman, Donald

      Huckfield, Leslie

      O'Malley, Brian

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oram, Bert

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hunter, Adam

      Paget, R. T.

      Cronin, John

      Janner, Greville

      Palmer, Arthur

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Doublas

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

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

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pendry, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur

      John, Brynmor

      Pentland, Norman

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Prescott, John

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Probert, Arthur

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

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

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Roper, John

      Doig, Peter

      Judd, Frank

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kelley, Richard

      Rose, Paul B.

      Driberg, Tom

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sandelson, Neville

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lambie, David

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Latham, Arthur

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lawson, George

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

      Edelman, Maurice

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Silverman, Julius

      English, Michael

      Leonard, Dick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Evans, Fred

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Small, William

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

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

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Tomney, Frank

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Woof, Robert

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Strang, Gavin

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Wallace, George

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

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

      Watkins, David

      Mr. William Hamling.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McLaren, Martin

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Foster, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fowler, Norman

      McMaster, Stanley

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fox, Marcus

      Macmillan, Maurice, (Farnham)

      Awdry, Daniel

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

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gardner, Edward

      Maddan, Martin

      Balniel, Lord

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Madel, David

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Marten, Neil

      Batsford, Brian

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mather, Carol

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Maude, Angus

      Bell, Ronald

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Benyon, W.

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gower, Raymond

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Biffen, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Biggs-Davidson, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Moate, Roger

      Blaker, Peter

      Green, Alan

      Money, Ernle

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Grieve, Percy

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Body, Richard

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Monro, Hector

      Boscawen, Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gurden, Harold

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Braine, Bernard

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Mudd, David

      Bray, Ronald

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Murton, Oscar

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neave, Airey

      Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Normanton, Tom

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Nott, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bryan, Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

      Hastings, Stephen

      Osborn, John

      Buck, Antony

      Havers, Michael

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hay, John

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hicks, Robert

      Peel, John

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Percival, Ian

      Channon, Paul

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Pounder, Rafton

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Churchill, W. S.

      Holt, Miss Mary

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

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Hordern, Peter

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hornby, Richard

      Raison, Timothy

      Clegg, Walter

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Cockeram, Eric

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Redmond, Robert

      Coombs, Derek

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Costain, A. P.

      Hunt, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Critchlay, Julian

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Crouch, David

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Curran, Charles

      James, David

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridsdale, Julian

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

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dean, Paul

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Dixon, Piers

      Kilfedder, James

      Rost, Peter

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kirk, Peter

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Knox, David

      Sharples, Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lambton, Antony

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

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lane, David

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Farr, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fell, Anthony

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Longden, Gilbert

      Soref, Harold

      Fidler, Michael

      Loveridge, John

      Speed, Keith

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Spence, John

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Sproat, Iain

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      1688

      1689

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Helper)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stokes, John

      Trew, Peter

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sutcliffe, John

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Peter

      van Straubenzes, W. R.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Waddington, David

      Worsley, Marcus

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Temple, John M.

      Wall, Patrick

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Walters, Dennis

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

    Clause 57

      OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REGULATIONS UNDER S. 56
      Lords Amendment: No. 126, in page 49, line 19, after "false" insert "in a a material particular".
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can also discuss Lords Amendment No. 127 with this.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: This is a small but not unimportant Amendment. As the Bill stands, a person would be guilty of an offence if he made a statement which he knew to be false or recklessly made a statement which was false in furnishing information required by regulations made under Clause 56.
      This could mean, for example, that an employer would be liable to prosecution simply because some minor and unimportant detail in his submission had gone unchecked and, therefore, was incorrect. The acceptance of this Amendment and Amendment 127 will make it clear that only if an employer submitted information which was incorrect to a significant degree would he be liable to prosecution.
      Two other parts of the Bill, paragraphs 36(2) and 44(4)(c) of Schedule 3 also defines circumstances in which furnishing false information constitutes an offence. In both cases the offences will be committed only if the information submitted is false in a material particular. The Amendment and that associated with it will bring Clause 57 into line with these provisions.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 59

      TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS
      Lords Amendment: No. 128, in page 50, line 5, after "Act" insert "(subject to section 84)".
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 129, in page 50, line 13, after "Act" insert "(subject to section 84)".
      The Solicitor-General: These Amendments propose small changes in the wording of Clause 59 to bring it into line with the wording of Clause 84. Clause 59, as drafted, dealt only with the registration of workers' organisations as such. As a result of the establishment of the special register—which was designed not for professional organisations but for bodies which by reason of their constitution as chartered or incorporated bodies could not qualify for registration on the ordinary register—it has become necessary to make a small adjustment in the terms of Clause 59.
      Once a body is on the special register, then, by Clause 84, it becomes an organisation of workers, but its terms of eligibility for entry on the special register are different from those set out in Clause 59 for entry on the ordinary register of organisations of workers. To make those two provisions match, there is a reference in Clause 84 to Clause 59. Corresponding cross-references from Clause 59 to Clause 84 are needed, and it is those which are inserted by the Amendments.
      Mrs. Castle: The Solicitor-General says that the Amendments make small alterations to Clause 59, but he would be

      1691
      the first to recognise that they cloak a quite large point of principle and of policy. The purpose of the Amendments is to qualify the definitions of subsections (1) and (2) so as to provide that an organisation of workers whose principal object is not the regulation of the terms and conditions of employment of its members can still enjoy the benefits of the Bill by going on the special register.
      An organisation of workers which does not register on the ordinary register and which is not qualified for the special register not only loses all the benefits of the Bill, but incurs severe penalties. It not only faces the risk of paying unlimited damages if it engages in an unfair industrial practice but loses certain tax privileges which it at present enjoys on its provident funds.
      We all know whom the special register is designed to accommodate. The introduction of the concept of the special register here and elsewhere in the Bill is the result of urgent representations by the British Medical Association on its own behalf and on behalf of other professional bodies, like the Royal College of Nursing and the chartered engineers, which wanted the best of both worlds. They wanted to retain both their industrial relations activities as representing the interests of their members concerning their terms and conditions of employment and their educational and other purposes which were the basis on which their charters were granted or which were, they claimed, an equivalent part of their activities.
      The Government had a very ready ear for the needs of professional groups of this kind, and the special register concept was introduced—and this is why we are having to amend the Clause—in order to give them the best of both worlds so that they did not have to give up their negotiating activities or the other activities on which their royal charters and other raisons d'être were based.
      There is, however, a neat form of class distinction here. Other organisations of workers which also have excellent reasons for not wanting to register on the ordinary register are given no choice. They have to submit to the indignity of having to acquire a State licence to operate on the State's terms—and those terms are embodied
      1692
      in the Bill—or become industrial outcasts.
      In the Bill there is a succession of indications of the ways in which the Government intend to penalise organisations of workers which do not want to register on the ordinary register and for which the special register is not designed to cater. Not only do they lose the immunity of Section 3 of the 1906 Act on their industrial relations activities; they are given no bargaining rights under the Bill. They are even denied the privileges of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. If they are held to have committed an unfair industrial practice, they are liable for unlimited damages. Finally, the tax relief on their provident funds is placed in jeopardy.
      There is a parallel here. Many organisations of workers which fully operate as trade unions have different facets to their activities. They are not merely bargaining units concerned wtih negotiating terms and conditions of employment for their members. They go wider. They, too, have their ideals and educational rôle. Above all, there is the humane aspect of the provident benefits which they provide for their members and which help to form a cohesive factor in the life of the organisation. They help to give it its morality and solidarity. They help to give their members their sense of comradeship. This has been a genuine aspect of their rôle in our society since the beginning of trade unionism. People banded together as brothers to protect each other in all sorts of ways, not least when it came to sickness or unemployment or in the event of other misadventures of life against which working people, in particular, are so defenceless. Therefore, these provident activities of unions have always been an integral part of their personality, and, I repeat, they are separate from and different from their industrial activities, as the educational work of the B.M.A. is different from its negotiating activities.
      8.30 p.m.
      Therefore, in our earlier discussion of this we advanced the proposition to the Government that they were exercising an intolerable piece of discrimination in this Bill against one type of organisation of workers, because, we argued, if an organisation of workers, if a trade union currently registered under the 1871 Act, did not register under this Government's

      1693
      Bill on this Government's terms, which the unions find repugnant, then the rest of its activities would be placed at risk, because we know that the provident activities can operate successfully only with the benefit of tax relief to which they have hiherto, happily, been entitled in respect of those activities.
      We got a good deal of support from the other side of the House. I remember the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) getting up and saying, in a very fair and excellent speech, "Yes, of course, the provident activities of trade unions are entirely different from their industrial activities, and the unions ought not to be penalised for their provident activities because they do not wish to register for industrial relations purposes under the Bill."
      This is a very basic point of principle, and so basic is it that the right hon. Gentleman himself got up and repudiated the suggestion that this was in any way the Government's intention. I remember that he did so when rejecting an Amendment which we put before him at that time to make the position of the provident funds of trade unions absolutely clear.
      The right hon. Gentleman, in our debate on the special register, had been arguiing that it would be quite wrong to subject the B.M.A., the lordly B.M.A., to the inconvenience of separating out its activities so as to avoid any difficulties under the Bill as it then stood. When we said to him, "Look, it is equally wrong, therefore, to ask trade unions to separate out their activities" and pressed an Amendment upon him to safeguard their tax reliefs, the right hon. Gentleman turned us down. Our proposition was that trade unions which did not want to register on the right hon. Gentleman's new register for industrial relations purposes should still be able to obtain tax relief for their provident activities provided they registered under the 1871 Act. We accepted his point that registration was a condition for that relief, but we said that for this purpose they should have their own special register, just as the B.M.A. is given one.
      The right hon. Gentleman turned us down on that; but he said he was not turning us down on ideological grounds. There were some hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in the usual truculent Tory
      1694
      way, said, "It is quite right that if trade unions do not register they should lose tax relief". I am glad to say that the right hon. Gentleman disowned some of the more reactionary of the hon. Members behind him. "But", he said, "while I accept the principle, I am rejecting the Amendment because it is unnecessary." That was his argument. Let me quote what he said at that time:
      "I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register. But it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty. I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, or the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 23rd March, 1971: Vol. 814, c. 335.]
      We pointed out to him at the time that even if his argument was correct he was still subjecting the trade unions to an inconvenience in the arrangement of their affairs that he was prepared to protect the B.M.A. against. But since he gave the House that assurance a lot of things have happened, and it is essential to examine them. I hope that he will listen carefully.
      First—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny this—it is now admitted by his noble and learned Friend in another place that his reference to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act as being available for this purpose was wrong. He assured us that it would help. I understand that it is now accepted that the advice he had on that point was wrong. So we are left with the facilities and hopes available to the trade union movement under the Friendly Societies Act. Since our debates earlier in the House, in which the T.U.C. took a profound interest because some £5 million to £6 million of union funds are at stake here, the T.U.C. itself has taken the advice of two learned counsel as to what the position will be if the Bill goes through in its present form. The advice of learned counsel is that the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the protection of the Friendly Societies is wrong as well. As a result of this, the T.U.C. has sent out a circular

      1695
      letter to its members which includes the following:
      "The conclusion seems unavoidable that neither of these"—
      neither of the Acts—
      "would provide a satisfactory means of securing tax exemptions. It is however possible that one or two unions might find the Friendly Societies' solution practicable in their own circumstances.
      "You will note that the Opinion of Counsel demonstrates that in his statement of March 23 Mr. Robert Carr was—intentionally or otherwise—giving a very misleading account of the operation of the Friendly Societies Act."
      It is a major interest of the T.U.C. that it should be able to assure its unions on this point, because it is official T.U.C. policy to advise its members not to register. It is hardly likely, therefore, to produce evidence of the disabilities of refusing to register unless it thought that the evidence was so sound that it should warn its members on this point.
      I think that all of us will agree that every union has been led, as the result of the advice it has received, to act on the assumption that if it decides not to register it will be financially penalised through the withdrawal of this tax relief. Every article one reads in the Press as to the effect of the Bill follows the same theme. There was an article in The Guardian only a day or two ago about the agonising choice facing unions on the question of whether or not to register. It too assumed, totally contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman was telling the House, and as everyone assumed, that, of course, if a union did not register its tax relief would be placed at risk and almost certainly be not available.
      I do not want to weary the House with the details of why the T.U.C.'s learned counsel argue that the protection afforded by the Friendly Societies Act is no protection at all. There was a complicated, complex and abstruse argument on this point in another place whether that Act applied only to organisations whose contributions were voluntary, and so on and so forth. The House over the past five days has had—to use a vulgarism—a belly-full of legal details and I do not want to add to them. Hon. Members can read in the Lords Hansard for 20th July the arguments advanced by Lord
      1696
      Diamond, who quoted the T.U.C.'s learned counsel.
      The point I want to make is this, and I put it moderately to the right hon. Gentleman because it is a matter of major substance. Surely he will admit that, at least, there is a legal doubt whether the advice he gave on the Friendly Societies Act is any more reliable than the advice he gave us on the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. When Lord Diamond and the Lord Chancellor debated this matter in another place, the Lord Chancellor was very frank about it. He more or less said that they should agree to disagree. He said:
      "there is a considerable difference between the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and myself about this matter. … I can only leave the House to judge between us …".
      He then repudiated the suggestion that the Secretary of State's honour was in any way at stake because he said that the right hon. Gentleman acted on the advice of the Solicitor-General.
      The Lord Chancellor then made the moving statement:
      "although I belong to a profession where we have to acknowledge that legal advice is not infallible, I know of no particular reason to believe that the Solicitor-General is wrong in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 912 and 915.]
      That is the final word on this subject from the highest legal luminary in the land. It confirms in my mind that the Solicitor-General's monopoly in this Bill is now complete. He is the only one who understands it; and he is the one person whose word everybody, including the Lord Chancellor, now has to take as holy writ. If we cannot get anything more comforting than those words from the Lord Chancellor, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman owes a duty to the House to fulfil the pledge he gave that he did not intend a trade union's provident funds to be penalised.
      There are technical quite apart from legal considerations. Although the right hon. Gentleman has said that there are no technical, constitutional or legal difficulties, these have been admitted by Lord Drumalbyn during the discussions in another place. Lord Diamond quoted a letter he had received from Lord Drumalbyn on 30th June when they were exchanging a vast amount of correspondence on this matter. That letter

      1697
      included the following words by Lord Drumalbyn:
      "I would not, of course, wish to imply that it would be a simple matter for a trade union to take this step"—
      that is the step of separate registration as a friendly society—
      "It might face problems depending on the provisions in its constitution and rules relating to the powers of its trustees, the nature of the provident benefits to be provided to members, and the method by which they are financed. At the very least it seems probable that the consent of members to major changes in union rules would be needed, and in some cases it seems quite possible that complex financial and actuarial questions might arise over the division of union funds and assets between those to be used for general purposes and those to be allocated to the friendly society taking over responsibility for provident benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 909–10.]
      In view of his noble Friend's letter, can the right hon. Gentleman in all honesty repeat tonight that he knows of no technical difficulty? If that is not a list of technical difficulties, I do not know what is. On the very best interpretation, this is hardly honouring the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave the House.
      8.45 p.m.
      The right hon. Gentleman showed enormous concern in protecting organisations like the B.M.A. from technical difficulties. In calling on him tonight to honour the undertaking which he gave, I suggest to him that there is a simple way out of the problem. At this stage, because of the restricted scope of the Lords Amendments and the fact that such an Amendment was never carried in the other place, we are estopped from introducing an Amendment now, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a way out.
      I understand that the Government have already recognised that there may be difficulties for unions which are on the provisional register and are not, therefore, fully registered for the purposes of tax relief. The Government have leaned over backwards to help them, no doubt because the right hon. Gentleman hopes that they will be the good boys who will register fully in due course. They have found an easy way to help them by announcing that it is proposed to bring in a Clause in next year's Finance Bill giving the same tax treatment to organisations
      1698
      on the provisional register as though they were fully registered as trade unions.
      A similar remedy is within the right hon. Gentleman's grasp in the present case. I believe that he gave his undertaking in good faith, but I assure him that very eminent people believe that, as the Bill stands, he is not in a position to honour the undertaking. So I ask him to give an assurance that if his advice proves to be wrong in the event and the legal and practical difficulties for trade unions are insuperable, the Government will in the next Finance Bill introduce a Clause to cover unions registered under the 1871 Act for tax relief purposes, as they are proposing to do for unions on the provisional register.
      That is very little to ask if the right hon. Gentleman really meant what he told us in Committee.
      Mr. Charles Pannell: A lot of the Government's argument springs from a complete misunderstanding of the history of the trade union movement in this matter. I cite the example of the union to which I belong, which, I believe, is more disadvantaged by the Bill than any other. Its present title is the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. If one looks back into history, one can see how deeply inherent friendly society benefits are in that organisation.
      We started as the Millwrights' Society in 1780. Friendly society benefits were inherent at that time for probably 1d. or 2d. a week. By 1825 we were part of the Steam Engine Makers' Society, by 1850 the A.S.E. and by 1920 the A.E.U. We became the A.E.F. and we are now the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. Changes of that sort mark forward stages in the normal progression of an organisation. This is what I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand.
      Mr. Orme: He is not listening.
      Mr. Pannell: I am trying to make the point—
      Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry.
      Mr. Pannell:—that when I take a section one A.U.E.W. card—but it was the A.E.U. when I was working for a living—into a factory, I take in not only a trade union ticket, not only a licence

      1699
      to work, but a certificate of proficiency in the job. The ticket is not given unless a member is a skilled tradesman. There are still places on the Clyde where it is more important to take in the ticket than to take in indentures.
      Built in throughout the years have been the friendly society benefits which were once characterised, I think, by a famous novelist as the first defence of the poor. Through the years those funds have been built up. The superannuation fund of my union is built in. No executive council, no ballot vote of the members—nothing—can interfere with it. It is a built-in fund which has nothing whatever to do with the industrial action of the union. And so it is with sickness benefits, funeral benefits and all sorts of other things which in the modern days of the Welfare State may seem rather small but are an essential part of the reason why people joined that union in days gone by.
      I understand that the Minister said that this difficulty could be overcome if only we somehow rearranged the funds of the union. A great amount is at stake. I am being modest when I say that the penalties of the Bill would carry my union into the realm of £500,000 a year and that the whole trade union spectrum is disadvantaged to the tune of about £5 million a year. That is very considerable money.
      I could understand when the Bill started—although it was mistaken—that we were concerned with industrial relations. We were not concerned with the disadvantaging of friendly societies, which is what the Bill does. One has only to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has read out to know that there is considerable dubiety.
      The law has always been an unknown quantity. When one considers the Taff Vale or the Osborne judgment one usually finds that one's expectation is overturned by a majority vote in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords.
      The late J. H. Thomas was absolutely sure in the Osborne case. I knew Osborne. He was a fellow townsman of mine. He was a Liberal born out of his time and not the miscreant that he was made out to be. J. H. Thomas was assured by the best lawyers in the land
      1700
      that there was no case at all, but it went wrong. One has only to search one's legal memory to find the number of occasions that that sort of thing has happened in the House. A Minister assures us, "This is the law, the case is built in", but then we find that it is overturned in the Court of Appeal.
      Who is the Lord Chancellor in the other place? Lord Hailsham. His father, who was also Lord Chancellor, made an expensive mistake here on the deportation of Irishmen. There was a very famous case in which Lord Hailsham was a great Parliamentary figure. He was one of those lawyers who was a natural, eloquent performer in this place. He was opposed by Sir Patrick Hastings on our side, who was not a good Parliamentary performer. When Patrick Hastings put up the case in about 1920 or 1921, he was almost laughed out of the House because his manner seemed so inept compared with Lord Hailsham. But when the court got hold of it it was Lord Hailsham who was turned over and this House had to bring in a Bill of Indemnity. I doubt whether the Solicitor-General would claim that he had the eminence of Sir Douglas Hogg, as he then was, but he was proved wrong. All that my right hon. Friend has asked is that if this is proved wrong the Minister should do no more than enter into an undertaking to right it in the Budget next year. That is a small thing to ask in a case like this.
      The unions do not want a register. We understand that. They will probably have to face the penalties of the law. But we should not get over this business by twisting the necks of their sick and superannuated members. Let us make no mistake about it. If a union sacrifices £500,000 a year it means a reduction in investment policy. It also means that the penalty is inflicted upon the applicant seeking relief.
      We say a great deal about the sturdy, self-respect of the British working class. It is no more ingrained than in the craftsman class. These people have ensured in other ways, apart from the State, for benefits which often take them beyond social security benefits. It is part of their self-respect. Yet, at the end of the day, we find that the Government have decided to treat craft unions somewhat less than the professional associations. They have

      1701
      drawn a sharp line between them. But anybody who has looked at the practices of the professional associations—the lawyers, the doctors or anybody else—knows that they have their sanctions against members. Like the craft unions, they are just as much motivated by self-interest, if not more so. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will appreciate that he has got something to put right. He has given assurances to this House in good faith on which doubt has been cast by the law.
      Every trade union, including my own, has sought the best possible legal advice. If I had been assured by my trade union that what the right hon. Gentleman wants can in fact be arranged, I should not be making this point tonight. After all, I have been a member of my trade union for 53 years.
      I hope that the Minister will come clean on this matter, bearing in mind the great amount of doubt which has been cast on what he has said. I assume that he gave his undertaking in good faith. His good faith is not in doubt, but his judgment and the quality of the legal advice which has been given to him are in doubt. This is a matter where the stakes are high and mean so much to a most useful section of our society. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the position.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is no doubt about the value of trade union provident funds. Many unions started their activities through their provident funds. Their membership grew because of the impact of these funds at a time when social security was not what it is today, and when the State was not involved in welfare of one sort and another.
      Anyone who knows anything about the trade unions and who supports the work they have done in industry must feel a certain amount of sympathy for those who want to maintain union activity in this respect. It is true that in recent years there has been a considerable reduction of trade union activity in welfare and provident matters. I regret that somewhat, because I think there would be an advantage in trade unions getting away from concentrating on pure wage bargaining and increasing their activities in matters in which they have been involved for many years but in which they have reduced their activities recently.
      1702
      In conversations that I have had with several trade union members, almost without exception they have said that this is an activity which they do not want to develop themselves because they think that the State ought to be more involved in it. They do not seek to diminish their responsibility, but they do not seek to develop it. This is unfortunate. I should prefer that it were otherwise, and it might be in due course.
      I do not want to take sides in the dispute between the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I find it difficult to be certain whether on this issue the lawyers will not find themselves wrong in any event when a case comes before the Court. It may be that in a test case a union will find that things are much easier than it thought they would be. It may, equally, find things more difficult. Some unions may find things easier than others will. The solution, of course, is for the unions to register. If they do, there is no problem.
      I think that there are great disadvantages in not registering. There will be disadvantages in another direction in any event, but I do not think that it would be worth while any Minister or Government setting out to force a union to register by getting at its funds, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Government do not have that in mind. We are at the stage of the Bill where we have to take things as they are, and I support those who ask that perhaps this might be looked at in due course by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      I say that because the issue may resolve itself over the next few months. It could resolve itself in a number of ways. First, the unions may register, although at present they say that they will not do so. But they may have a change of heart. They may decide that there are advantages in the Bill which they want which outweigh the disadvantages. Despite what has been said in this House, after a period of time the unions may want to register. If they were to do so, there would be no problem.
      They may, on the other hand, go to the Court at an early stage, or at least one of them may do so, and that may resolve the problem. But, whatever action

      1703
      is taken in the course of the next few months, I think that it is fair for us on this side of the House to ask my right hon. Friend to take good note of all that is said. Although he cannot anticipate the Budget—that can be done only by the Chancellor himself—if it so happens that in the course of the next year there is a difficulty which puts at hazard provident funds, which are out- with the normal activities of the union as an industrial bargaining organisation, the Chancellor will consider this to see whether he can assist otherwise, let us face it, the action that would be taken would not really be against the union as such, but would be against certain members of it, because only certain members gain any advantage from provident funds. They are usually those who are sick or old-age pensioners, who are not active and certainly not militant members. At this late stage in the Bill, if it is any consolation to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I wish to say two things—
      Mr. Charles Loughlin Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West) rose—
      Mr. Lewis: I will give way in a minute. I want to make these points. First, it must be the aim of the Minister to get registration, and it is obviously my wish that there should be registration. Secondly, in the course of time this matter can be looked at again in the light of what I have already said—the possibility that the unions themselves may be taking action, and secondly, in the light of what the Minister sees happening in the country arising from the effects of the Bill. If we leave the matter on that basis, I am sure that it will be concluded satisfactorily in due course.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that only a given number of members of a union had an advantage from the provident fund. Is he aware that a very high proportion—in the region of 90 per cent. plus—pay contributions based upon the provident fund benefits? If the hon. Gentleman takes out an insurance that presupposes that he is catering for a situation that might arise. Therefore, every one of the members who pays on the basis of scales related to provident
      1704
      benefits gets an advantage out of the fund.
      Mr. Lewis: I accept that. What I was saying was that at any one moment there are only certain people who are getting an advantage. Anyone who pays may get an advantage, and at the end of the day, on retirement, they certainly will. I accept that.
      Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has produced a number of logical points and I do not dissent from what he has urged upon the Minister. I want to make only one comment on what he has said.
      The hon. Gentleman has invited the House to leave the matter in uncertainty, and that is a consequence which I cannot accept. Before the House parts with this legislation, it must be the duty of hon. Members to create reasonable certainty about the incidence of this legislation before we allow it to leave the House of Commons. That is essential. I do not comment in a carping spirit on what the hon. Gentleman has urged, but we need much more certainty than has been suggested.
      As the Secretary of State well knows, we are discussing one of the two most critical areas of this legislation. It has been the contention of the Secretary of State that he has felt aware of his function as Minister of Labour in his present office, whatever the name of that office. He has said many times that he fully accepts the case when it is urged upon him that it puts him in a special position among Ministers. In fact, as Minister of Labour, he has denied that there is any attempt at vindictiveness in this legislation.
      There have been two main critical areas throughout these debates. The first has been the charge that the Secretary of State and the Government are deliberately attempting to reduce the strength and power of the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman has always rejected that charge, although he has left us unconvinced.
      The second main area of criticism is that in parts of the Bill—this is one—the Secretary of State is trying to hit trade unionists, whether they are engaged in industrial conflict or not. He has

      1705
      many times protested that that charge was unworthy—
      Mr. Anthony Fell Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) indicated assent.
      Mr. Mendelson: I am glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member that that is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
      This is a test case. The passing reference to militants by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford which was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), showed that he accepts our criticism that the first purpose is to hit militants and to reduce the power and strength of the unions.
      Mr. Bidwell: Is it not ironic that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has earned himself the reputation of being one of the most militant Conservative Members?
      Mr. Mendelson: That is an epithet which the hon. Gentleman will probably accept.
      We are now in the second most critical area, concerning the social activities of unions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) with his profound experience of the trade union movement has said, this is part of the essence of every union—from the Transport and General Workers Union, to which I belong, to many small unions covering only a small range of industrial activity. No one can understand the growth of the trade union movement without understanding that side of its activities.
      The Secretary of State has said many times that he wants no part of any attack on the provident funds of the union, but, if he makes no further assurance, he will be convicted of two crimes—vindictive legislation and an attempt to coerce unions to register against their democratic decisions.
      We have quoted Mr. Victor Feather's reasons for opposing registration, and since Committee stage there have been many union conferences which have discussed this matter. Since it is the essence of the right hon. Gentleman's case that he is not coercing unions to register in this roundabout way, surely he should pay due regard to what was said at those conferences.
      1706
      9.15 p.m.
      It is the duty of the Government to accept the burden of the case we are making and agree that a way out must be found. I am not at present commenting on the proposal made by my right hon. Friend, who has been in touch with all sections of the trade union movement through the T.U.C. It is open to the Minister to consider a range of methods to deal with this problem. Either way, he must find a way out and say tonight that he accepts the general case being urged on him.
      It would create far too much uncertainty for the Secretary of State to accept the case of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. One cannot say in this matter that the problem may resolve itself or that there may be a test case. A responsible Government must accept the logic of the situation and show that they are prepared to provide a remedy.
      On many occasions since the Bill was introduced people have said that the Government have set out, in cold blood, to weaken the trade union movement and to use all sorts of methods to bring about a weakening of the movement's industrial activities. The Government have repeatedly replied that those who make these allegations are misguided, though little impact has been made on the trade union movement by the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
      We are discussing a matter that goes beyond contentions about the purpose of the Government in respect of trade union activity. We are branching out into the whole sphere of humanitarian social provision. In this instance, the Government must respond to our case and give an assurance that they accept what we are urging on them. We must also be given a clear indication of the way out the right hon. Gentleman intends to provide, and if this is not done the Government will stand convicted of the allegations that have been made about them.
      Mr. Skinner: I intend to concentrate on one issue and one section of people. I refer to the Derbyshire miners, though to be accurate I am really speaking of those who have left the industry.
      In 1969, when I was their president, there were 15,000 Derbyshire miners belonging to the N.U.M. Out of their contributions of 3s. a week—the overall

      1707
      amount contributed was gradually reduced because of the loss of 23,000 jobs in the mines in 12 years—1s. 10d. went in old-age benefits. About £70,000 was allocated by the N.U.M. out of its funds not to members of the mining industry but to those who had left it.
      The matter did not rest there. In the 'fifties, with pits closing at a fast rate, it was found necessary in the Derbyshire area to introduce a scheme to provide concessionary coal for retired miners and their widows. To this end, the miners contributed a proportion of their own concessionary coal.
      There have been a lot of misconceptions. Many people thought that Lord Robens and the Coal Board had always provided the concessionary coal, but in Derbyshire, as elsewhere, it has been provided by the miners themselves. With the closure of the pits in the late fifties and into the sixties it was found that the four tons a year of concessionary coal for miners and widows of retired miners could not be continued unless something was done, so the miners, with the solidarity that has been evident among them for more than a century, surrendered 10s. of the 11s. 9d. in the price of the coal. It was only then that Lords Robens or someone else decided as a quid pro quo to add 10s. to each 10s. contributed by the miners. Yet, I repeat, this was done for those who had left the industry.
      Gradually, that concession proved to be not enough, and in my last year as president of the union in Derbyshire we decided to contribute £47,000 out of union funds. That was in addition to the £70,000 already contributed in old age benefits at the rate of £74 per member. It did not rest there. It was decided in the same year to spend another £30,000 on giving retired miners and widows, and in some cases families, a holiday at Skegness. Every penny piece came from the Derbyshire miners.
      The people concerned are not people who will have an opportunity to decide whether they should register. They are not even members of the union. Therefore, if the Government let this wording go through as it is they will not be attacking the 13,000 miners of Derbyshire but those countless thousands of retired miners and widows of miners who have benefited from the old
      1708
      age benefits scheme, the holiday scheme and the concessionary coal scheme, which they think will last for a lifetime. It is high time that the Government stopped attacking the mining industry as it has been doing during the last 15 months, and started carrying out their so-called honest policy of which the Prime Minister spoke on 18th June last year.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has presented to the House a pertinent and moving description of how the trade unions deal with their provident funds. There is a long history behind these provident funds. In the early days they were built up of halfpennies and pennies, until we had accumulated thousands and then millions of pounds for the benefit of members, many of them no longer working at the trade, or perhaps suffering from industrial injury, or fallen on hard times. The trade union movement has maintained the provident funds even in the Welfare State in which the Government have made some dents. We have been told by the Secretary of State for Social Services that people must stand on their own feet more, must make their own provision. The trade unions realise that there is still a need for their provident funds.
      I am proud to be a president of my own trade unions branch, and I have been for the last 21 years. Once a fortnight on a Friday evening 30 or 40 superannuated members come to the branch meeting to collect their superannuation to which they have contributed. They are the people who will be penalised by these proposals.
      The trade union movement firmly believes that the Government are continuing with this proposal as a means of forcing trade unions to register. I speak not from hearsay but from having attended branch meetings and meetings of shop stewards and other trade union meetings throughout the country when I say that if the Secretary of State wants to mitigate the bitterness already created, if he does not want the trade union movement to be driven beyond being able to accept a reasonable solution from the Government—and as things are going it will be completely impossible if the Bill goes on the Statute Book—if he does not want even more deterioration in the situation, he must do something about this matter.
      Some of my hon. Friends and I recently met the executive council of the A.E.U.W.

      1709
      We were then told that the union's best legal advice, the advice not just of one adviser but of two or three, was that it would be impossible to offset the cost of this money and that the union would have to meet it, that the only way it could get round the problem would be by putting its provident funds into the hands of members over whom it would have no control; and it is impossible for my union to separate these moneys, because of the way in which it is constructed and organised.
      Many of us believe that the right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance in Committee. He has not sought to address the House on this subject in the last five days and it is only through the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend that we have been able to debate it at all. He owes the House and certainly the trade union movement an explanation. The only way out for him and his right hon. Friends is to seek some way to protect these funds so that the argument may be carried on at another level, so that the Government do not try to force the trade unions to register by threatening their sick, industrially injured and old members.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Loughlin: It would be impudent if I were to attempt to detain the House for long, because I was not present during the earlier part of the debate. My hon. Friends have discussed the Government's intentions. I have never had any allusions about the Bill or the Government. I said many times in Committee and on Report that the Bill was designed as a deliberate measure—to use the words of right hon. Gentlemen opposite before and during the General Election—to cut the unions down to size. That is the sum total of it.
      What I cannot understand is that the Government should be prepared not merely to shackle the trade unions over industrial disputes through the legal technicalities of the Bill but to be so spiteful and vindictive as to attack the unions through those who have tried to provide additional benefit for themselves over and above that which the union provides when they are sick or unemployed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so graphically put it, these men may leave the industry and seek benefit from the unions which are prepared to provide it, at some cost and sacrifice,
      1710
      because of the contribution which these people have made to the industry.
      The Government have only one point to answer here. They have to say why, if societies normally known as provident societies, such as the Oddfellows, the "Buffs" and the various other societies, obtain the benefits of tax concessions on the basis of benefits paid to their members because they are registered under the Provident Socities Act, trade unions providing exactly the same benefits for their members should not be treated in the same way. If they cannot answer that I can only deduce that the requirement for trade unions to register to safeguard their position as a provident society is a further sanction upon the unions.
      If I were a member of a Government seeking to obtain the co-operation of the trade unions because of our financial and trading position I would want to be able to demonstrate clearly that any action of mine which differentiated between the unions and the provident societies was not based on discrimination against the unions. It would be a gloomy outlook for us without their cooperation. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman has reasonable grounds for imposing this additional requirement, but if he has not, then I charge him with discriminating against the unions in cold blood, as a method of playing on the deficiencies of an individual member, whether sick or unemployed, to dragoon the unions into registration.
      Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) began her speech on this important matter by entering the argument through the door of the special register. She said that I was prepared to do something for the wonderful British Medical Association which I was not prepared to do for other people. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this case, that is certainly not one of them, because I am sure that she must know that that argument is totally irrelevant, for the following reason.
      The special register, which we provided for companies and chartered bodies which also carry out industrial relations activities, carries exactly the same responsibilities as the ordinary register under the Bill. Bodies which go on the special register accept no more but equally no

      1711
      less than ordinary trade unions and organisations of workers do when they register. When they go on the special register, bodies like the B.M.A. and the Royal College of Nursing accept the public accountability of registration which is the inherent principle in the concept of registration in the Bill for the conduct of industrial relations. Bodies which go on the special register accept the very degree and the kind of public accountability which some unions are at the moment saying they will refuse to accept. Therefore, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the main issue, the special register argument is a red herring which is not concerned with it.
      In the debate on 23rd March I assured the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which, although not wanting to register with the new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, nevertheless would need the benefit of an amendment to the Bill to preserve and continue their provident fund activities, I would propose such an amendment. I most certainly stand by that assurance.
      I said in the earlier debate that I did not consider that a special register was necessary. Since then I have again carefully studied the position and the case which has been advanced to the contrary, and I assure the House that I remain convinced that such a register is not necessary. It is true that on 23rd March I mentioned two Acts as being possible ways by which trade unions could solve this problem if they decided not to register or to leave the provisional register when they were on it. I accept, as a result of further investigation, that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act is not helpful in this respect. But I am convinced that the other Act, the Friendly Societies Act, is helpful.
      I should like to spend a few moments examining the reasons for that opinion. The legal opinion obtained by the T.U.C. not only has been dealt with in debate in another place but has been the subject of meetings and correspondence and has been looked into very carefully. I wish to deal with the major difficulties which the advice received by the T.U.C. seemed to present and to try to explain why we believe the difficulties are not of the kind which were supposed.
      1712
      I gather that, according to the advice received by the T.U.C. the first major difficulty was that membership of the unregistered trade union and that of the associated friendly society which it would have to set up might diverge. But, even if that were to happen, I would regard it as no more than a disadvantage, certainly not as an insuperable difficulty. However, I cannot see that it need be so in this case on the ground which was put forward, relying on the advice which was given to the T.U.C. that the requirement of Section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896—that membership of the friendly society must be voluntary—must preclude the maintenance of common membership with the trade union.
      We do not agree that this is so. This requirement would not prevent a friendly society from adopting a rule limiting membership to persons who were members of a particular trade union. Indeed, there are examples of registered societies with just such rules. Moreover, there is, in our view, no reason for assuming, if a trade union found it necessary in its particular circumstances, that membership of a friendly society should not be made a condition of membership of the trade union, though I am bound to say I do not clearly understand, from what I have heard so far, in what kind of circumstances a union would find it necessary to ensure that all its members were members of a linked friendly society.
      I say that because I know that the majority of trade unions at present do not require their members to contribute to their provident schemes as a condition of membership. Such schemes are, I think, normally optional, and trade unions seem quite able to cope satisfactorily at the moment with two classes of members, those who contribute to the provident funds and those who do not. Be that as it may, I see no reason why a union should not have such a rule as that to which I have referred if for some reason it wanted to do so.
      Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing the argument that unions can separate their friendly society functions now. That is true. But take the case in point, which I know best. Section one membership has to be complete membership. It has to be. The sections three, four, five membership does not carry the same prestige as that

      1713
      of trade unions. I have known an admiral boast about his membership of my union—under section one; but he could not belong under any other.
      Mr. Carr: I have just said that I see no reason why a trade union, if it forms a separate friendly society, should not have a linking rule of the kind I have mentioned. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be fair enough to admit that the point he has made was not part of the assurance which I gave the House on 23rd March. Nevertheless, I see no reason why such a linking rule should not be made.
      I would add the fact that the friendly society must be a separate organisation—as it must, technically—but that does not mean that it cannot have any link with a trade union in respect of those who govern it and in respect of control of its funds. Certainly, the trade union itself could not run the friendly society as a trade union, but if the friendly society has a substantial common membership with the trade union—which, after all, is precisely the kind of circumstance we are envisaging—there is no reason why persons who have been elected to the governing body of the trade union could not be elected by members of the friendly society to equivalent governing posts in the friendly society. After all, they will be the same people choosing in both cases.
      Mr. Norman Atkinson: This is a very important point which the right hon. Gentleman is now enunciating, but is it true? Suppose a friendly society fund has the right to elect a totally different leadership from that running the union. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that both ballots should be free to elect different leaderships one in contradiction of the other?
      Mr. Carr: I do not really see that that would be shocking if that were so. No part of the assurance I gave would affect it in that way. There would be nothing in that to prevent members of a trade union from carrying on provident activities which they are at present carrying on. If they choose—I think it unlikely, but presumably they will do it if they have good reason—to have different numbers of their members to run the provident side of their activity, that is
      1714
      something that they must be free to do. But I do not see why they should do it.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: The leadership of the trade union is responsible for the investment of its funds and the return that it requires from its property. These funds would be handed over to possibly a totally different leadership, and therefore, there could be a contradictory arrangement within the same organisation arising from a totally different leadership being elected to administer the investment policies being pursued by a different executive.
      Mr. Carr: I made it clear on 23rd March that of course they must be separated. It is no part of our intention, and I have never suggested that it is, that in some way specially protected provident funds should all be mixed up with the industrial relations fighting funds of an unregistered organisation of workers. Nothing I have ever said could conceivably have been taken to suggest that I have anything like that in mind. The assurance which I gave, and which I stand by, is that it should be possible for a union which decides not to register under the new scheme of registration to take measures without insuperable difficulty to enable it both to protect its present provident funds and continue its provident fund activities.
      As I said in March, the way to do this is by setting up a separate friendly society. That was my assurance. The argument we have had to meet is the suggestion that, contrary to the advice I was given, it would not be possible to do this, that there would be insuperable difficulties. That is the charge which has been made against me and that is the charge which I am answering, so do not let us get confused. I am not trying to deal with the general dislike of the hon. Members opposite to the whole question of registration. What I am answering, and answering categorically, is the charge that I was wrong when I assured the House in March that provident funds and provident activities could be protected by transferring to a separate friendly society. I am not saying that this is something the unions want to do, but it is something that they could do. I am defending that assurance on the ground that it is possible to do it. I am not presenting it to the House as something which these

      1715
      organisations would wish to do, but I am saying, just as I said in March, that it is something they can do. I will go on to deal with the difficulties which were put up against the possibility of doing what I said.
      Mr. Atkinson: This is an extremely important aspect of the whole business of registration. Can we take it, from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, in relation to what he told us on 23rd March, that the Registrar will require the separation of friendly society funds from union funds if registration is to be allowed? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Registrar will require a separation of these two things; at least, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, the Registrar could insist upon the separation of friendly society funds from the rest. On the other hand, if a union does not register, the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing that the only way possible for it to continue to receive benefit from income tax allowances or concessions is to have possibly two executives controlling its two functions.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is putting what I said the other way round. If unions register under the new Bill they will be able to continue, as I understand it, as they are at the moment. What I was saying, repeating what I said two months ago, was that when we were talking about how we might protect the provident activities and provident funds of unions which chose not to register they would have to separate those provident funds. If any hon. Member refers to the HANSARD of 23rd March he will see that that is what I was saying.
      I have now dealt with the first major difficulty put forward in the legal advice to the T.U.C. on the ground that there was an insuperable difficulty in doing what I suggested should be done on 23rd March.
      The second major point of difficulty from this advice was that a friendly society set up by the members of the trade union would not be able to be financed by a transfer of funds from the trade union on the ground that Section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, requires that the benefit paid by the society must be provided by voluntary
      1716
      subscription of the members. However, what that section actually provides is that benefits should be provided
      "by voluntary subscription of the members thereof"—
      and then come the important words
      "with or without the aid of donations."
      This specific reference to donations in our view would enable a friendly society to accept the funds initially transferred to it from the trade union without jeopardising its status as a friendly society. There is no doubt that thereafter the friendly society could not be financed solely by donations from the union, but provided that subscriptions to friendly societies were payable by its members the society would be able to receive further donations from the unions if this were thought necessary or desirable. That was the other major difficulty, and we are convinced that is not an insuperable one.
      Another point, though less important, related to the differences in the range of benefits available to members of friendly societies compared with those for which a trade union may obtain tax relief under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. The only differences suggested in the advice received by the T.U.C. which might be significant is that benefits provided by a friendly society must be
      "for the relief or maintenance of the members or of their dependants"
      whereas trade unions may provide benefit to the sick, injured or unemployed members without any similar qualification.
      The Registrar of Friendly Societies has stated that he does not share the view that the words
      "relief or maintenance of the members"
      imply that a claimant for benefit from the funds of a friendly society must be in poverty or need. In fact, he tells us that friendly societies have always paid benefit to their members when sick irrespective of any question of need, and in practice there will be no difference in this respect from the position adopted by trade unions.
      Thus, having examined the legal submission fully and in detail, I am satisfied that it has not been shown that there are technical, legal and constitutional difficulties which would prevent a trade union continuing its provident activities by the setting-up of a friendly society.

      1717
      It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members, though it may be of interest to remind the House as a whole, that there are two well known unions, N.A.L.G.O. and the National Union of Teachers, which already have separate friendly societies, the condition of membership of which is that the would-be member of the friendly society has also to be a member of the respective union. There are at least two cases—I believe I could find more—of unions which have already done what I am proposing they could do if they wished.
      I did not say last March that this was something which a union would want to do, but I gave an assurance that it was something which it could do, and that I genuinely believe to be so. I am convinced that it is so. The difficulties which have been put forward have been closely examined, and I believe that the answers which I have given tonight are firm and definitive answers to the difficulties which have been advanced. I stand by my assurance, and I believe that it will prove to be correct.
      Mrs. Castle: By leave of the House, I should like to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
      He has not advanced the argument any further; nor has he answered the points which I raised. He has merely repeated at length the very arguments about detailed questions on the Friendly Societies Act which were put forward by the Lord Chancellor in the other place, that is, the arguments which I said I would spare the House when I spoke earlier because they were irrelevant to my main argument. Those arguments were irrelevant, first, because they represented only one legal opinon, the opinion which the Lord Chancellor was giving to the other place, and that was not even his opinion. He frankly admitted that he was basing his legal analysis on the Solicitor-General's point of view. It was in that context that the Lord Chancellor made the observation which I quoted earlier:
      "… although I belong to a profession where we have to acknowledge that legal advice is not infallible, I know of no particular reason to believe that the Solicitor-General is wrong in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 915.]
      The fact that the Lord Chancellor does not know of any particular reason to
      1718
      doubt the Solicitor-General's advice does not require us in the House of Commons to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's word as holy writ. When I am advised that learned counsel who have to give detailed consideration to this problem for the T.U.C. come to a view different from that of the Solicitor-General, I am, to say the least, entitled to say that the legal arguments are not proved.
      The Secretary of State says that he stands by his view that there is no insuperable difficulty to the separation of the provident funds of a trade union from its other funds so as to continue to qualify for tax relief. If there really were no insuperable difficulty, why should trade unions which are determined not to register not take the steps which he says are not insuperably difficult? They stand to lose money if they do not. Why on earth should trade unions which are anxious to persuade their members to endorse their decisions not to register then say: "We are sorry, but, on careful examination of the situation, we find that if we do not register we lose this tax relief because it is impossible for us to separate our provident funds in this way"?
      Who is the judge of the insuperability of the difficulties in this situation?—not the facile and plausible Secretary of State but the trade union movement, which has its back to the wall.
      The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to answer the points which Lord Drumalbyn made in his letter to Lord Diamond about the technical difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated that he saw no technical difficulties. Let me remind him of what Lord Drumalbyn said:
      "At the very least it seems probable that the consent of members to major changes in union rules would be needed, and in some cases it seems quite possible that complex financial and actuarial questions might arise over the division of union funds and assets"
      in the way the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. All I can say is that if complex financial and actuarial difficulties are not technical difficulties—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mrs. Castle: I repeat, if these are not technical difficulties of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in
his Committee stage speech, words on the Bill have lost all meaning.
Therefore, we on this side say that the Government have once again demonstrated that when it comes to a question of trade union rights, they do not give a damn. They will hide behind facile arguments and then, whatever difficulties we explain to the Secretary of State, simply brush them aside. For these reasons, I call upon my hon. Friends to divide the House.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 223.

Division No. 465.]

AYES

[10.1 p.m.

Adley, Robert

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

Hayhoe, Barney

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Dean, Paul

Hicks, Robert

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Higgins, Terence, L.

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Dixon, Piers

Hiley, Joseph

Atkins, Humphrey

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

Awdry, Daniel

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Drayson, G. B.

Holt, Miss Mary

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hordern, Peter

Balniel, Lord

Dykes, Hugh

Hornby, Richard

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Batsford, Brian

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Eyre, Reginald

Howell, David (Guildford)

Bell, Ronald

Farr, John

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Fell, Anthony

Hunt, John

Benyon, W.

Fenner, Mr. Peggy

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Fidler, Michael

Iremonger, T. L.

Biffen, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

James, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Jessel, Toby

Blaker, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Jopling, Michael

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Fortescue, Tim

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Body, Richard

Foster, Sir John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Boscawen, Robert

Fowler, Norman

Kilfedder, James

Bossom, Sir Clive

Fox, Marcus

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Bowden, Andrew

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

Kinsey, J. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Fry, Peter

Kirk, Peter

Braine, Bernard

Gardner, Edward

Knox, David

Bray, Ronald

Gibson-Watt, David

Lambton, Antony

Brewis, John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Lane, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Le Marchant, Spencer

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Goodhart, Philip

Longden, Gilbert

Bryan, Paul

Gorst, John

Loveridge, John

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

Gower, Raymond

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Buck, Antony

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

MacArthur, Ian

Bullus, Sir Eric

Gray, Hamish

McCrindle, R. A.

Burden, F. A.

Green, Alan

McLaren, Martin

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Grieve, Percy

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Carlisle, Mark

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McMaster, Stanley

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Grylls, Michael

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Channon, Paul

Glimmer, Selwyn

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Gurden, Harold

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Maddan, Martin

Churchill, W. S.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marten, Neil

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mather, Carol

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maude, Angus

Clegg, Walter

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Mawby, Ray

Cockeram, Eric

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Coombs, Derek

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Cormack, Patrick

Hastings, Stephen

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Costain, A. P.

Havers, Michael

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

Critchley, Julian

Hawkins, Paul

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Crouch, David

Hay, John

Moate, Roger

Curran, Charles

Money, Ernle

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Monro, Hector

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

More, Jasper

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Tilney, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Rost, Peter

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Trew, Peter

Mudd, David

Scott, Nicholas

Tugendhat, Christopher

Murton, Oscar

Scott-Hopkins, James

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Neave, Airey

Sharples, Richard

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Normanton, Tom

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

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Nott, John

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Onslow, Cranley

Simeons, Charles

Waddington, David

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Sinclair, Sir George

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Osborn, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Soref, Harold

Wall, Patrick

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Speed, Keith

Walters, Dennis

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Spence, John

Ward, Dame Irene

Peel, John

Sproat, Iain

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Percival, Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Pink, R, Bonner

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Pounder, Rafton

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Wiggin, Jerry

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Stokes, John

Wilkinson, John

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

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Sutcliffe, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Tapsell, Peter

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Redmond, Robert

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

Woodnutt, Mark

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Worsley, Marcus

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tebbit, Norman

Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Temple, John M.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Ridsdale, Julian

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

NOES

Albu, Austen

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Delargy, H. J.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Allen, Scholefield

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Huckfield, Leslie

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Doig, Peter

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Ashton, Joe

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Atkinson, Norman

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Driberg, Tom

Hunter, Adam

Barnett, Joel

Duffy, A. E. P.

Janner, Greville

Beaney, Alan

Dunnett, Jack

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Eadie, Alex

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

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Edelman, Maurice

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Bidwell, Sydney

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Bishop, E. S.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

John, Brynmor

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Ellis, Tom

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

English, Michael

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

Booth, Albert

Evans, Fred

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Bradley, Tom

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

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

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

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

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Buchan, Norman

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Judd, Frank

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

Foley, Maurice

Kaufman, Gerald

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Foot, Michael

Kolley, Richard

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Ford, Ben

Kinnock, Neil

Cant, R. B.

Forrester, John

Lambie, David

Carmichael, Neil

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Latham, Arthur

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Freeson, Reginald

Lawson, George

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Leadbitter, Ted

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Garrett, W. E.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Cohen, Stanley

Gilbert, Dr. John

Leonard, Dick

Coleman, Donald

Golding, John

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Conlan, Bernard

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Gourlay, Harry

Lipton, Marcus

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Loughlin, Charles

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Cronin, John

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hamilton, Jams (Bothwell)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McBride, Neil

Dalyell, Tam

Hardy, Peter

McCartney, Hugh

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Harper, John

McGuire, Michael

Davidson, Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Mackie, John

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hattersley, Roy

Mackintosh, John P.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Maclennan, Robert

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)

Heffer, Eric S.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Horam, John

McNamara, J. Kevin

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

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

Marks, Kenneth

1722

1723

Marquand, David

Pentland, Norman

Strang, Gavin

Marsden, F.

Perry, Ernest G.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Meacher, Michael

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Prescott, John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Mendelson, John

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Millan, Bruce

Probert, Arthur

Tinn, James

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Tomney, Frank

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Torney, Tom

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

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Tuck, Raphael

Molloy, William

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Urwin, T. D.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Varley, Eric G.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Roper, John

Wainwright, Edwin

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Rose, Paul B.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Morris, Rt. Hon. John (Aberavon)

Sandelson, Neville

Wallace, George

Moyle, Roland

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Watkins, David

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Weitzman, David

Murray, Ronald King

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Whitehead, Phillip

Ogden, Eric

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

O'Halloran, Michael

Silverman, Julius

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

O'Malley, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Oram, Bert

Small, William

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Orme, Stanley

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Oswald, Thomas

Spearing, Nigel

Woof, Robert

Paget, R. T.

Spriggs, Leslie

Palmer, Arthur

Stallard, A. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Mr. William Hamling.

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Pendry, Tom

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: No. 130, in page 50, line 14, leave out from "temporary" to "is" in line 22 and insert:
"whose membership consists wholly or mainly—

(a) of constituent or affiliated organisations each of which either fulfils the conditions specified in subsection (1)(a) of this section or is an organisation for the time being entered in the special register to be maintained under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, or itself consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions or are for the time being entered in that register, or

(b) of representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

and which (in either case)".
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 take Lords Amendment No. 131, in Clause 60, page 51, line 3, leave out from beginning to "is" in line 11 and insert:
"whose membership consists wholly or mainly—

(a) of constituent or affiliated organisations each of which fulfils the conditions specified in subsection (1)(a) of this section or itself consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions, or

(b) of representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

and which (in either case)".
These Amendments relate to the same point. Amendment No. 130 relates to a federation of workers' organisations and Amendment No. 131 to a federation of employers' organisations.
Amendment No. 130 makes one change relating to a federation of workers' organisations only. The effect of that change is to allow a federation of workers' organisations to include among its membership not only workers' organisations as such but organisations which are registered on the special register. In other words, a federation can include the two different kinds of workers' organisation, whether registered on the ordinary register or on the special register.
The other change which is made, in respect of both federations of workers'
1726
organisations and federations of employers' organisations, is of a slightly different kind, although technical. As Clause 59 stands, a federation of workers' organisations is something which consists wholly or mainly of organisations. Defined in that way it could include an amalgam or merger of organisations whose membership was made up of individual members. In other words, it would be not a true federation of organisations but an amalgam of organisations composed of individuals. The effect of the change, which is to substitute an organisation
"' whose membership consists wholly or mainly—

(a) of constituent or affiliated organisations '".

is to make it plain that the federation has to be a true federation of organisations made up of organisations whose membership consists of organisations rather than one whose membership consists of ordinary members. Exactly the same change is made by Amendment No. 131 which refers to a federation of employers' organisations.
It is upon that basis that I commend the Amendments to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Clause 61

    APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT REGISTRARS
    Lords Amendment: No. 132, in page 51, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Perhaps it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we take Lords Amendment No. 133, in page 51, line 36, leave out subsection (4).
    I can briefly summarise the purpose of these Amendments. The Bill originally laid down that the registrars had to be legally qualified. While it is desirable that legal expertise should be available to registrars, it is not essential that the registrars themselves should be legally

    1727
    qualified. Other qualifications, such as a knowledge of industrial relations and so forth, are just as important.
    The Amendments will make it easier to make the most appropriate appointments in the future. Although the registrars will take over certain adjudicatory functions from the present registrars of friendly societies, these will henceforth be subject to the new right of appeal to the Industrial Court, and that new right of appeal over adjudicated decisions by the registrars seems to us to remove the last major obstacle of principle which prevented the registrars themselves from being other than legally qualified. Therefore, we believe it is right that the Bill should provide that the registrars, while they could be legally qualified, need not have to be.
    Mr. John Fraser: The Bill is likely to have the Royal Assent if it goes through tonight. Can the right hon. Gentleman say who the registrars will be?
    Mr. Carr: I certainly cannot do any such thing.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 63

    GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS
    Lords Amendment: No. 134, in page 53, line 12, leave out "casting his vote" and insert "voting".
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment. It rephrases part of Clause 63(6) which establishes the right of members of an organisation of workers to vote "without interference or constraint". Although we did not think that the present drafting of the subsection would lead to serious difficulties of interpretation, we had no objection to the revised drafting which was suggested by Lord Diamond in another place. We certainly fully intend that the opportunity to vote without interference or constraint should be given whatever method of voting is used, whether by
    1728
    ballot, a show of hands or by any other method. If the term "casting his vote" could be taken to refer only to voting in a ballot, we are glad to remove any doubt in this matter by replacing it with the word "voting.".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 135, page 53, line 23, leave out from "to" to end of line 26 and insert—
    "take part in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, or in such circumstances as, in accordance with any provision of this Act, to constitute an unfair industrial practice on the part of the organisation or of that person, or
    (c) to take part in any irregular industrial action short of a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has organised, procured or financed as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection".
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It may be convenient to the House if with this Amendment we take the following Lords Amendments:
    No. 278, in page 118, line 9, after first "a" insert "concerted",
    No. 279, in line 10, leave out "which is concerted by them", and No. 280, in line 12, at end insert:
    "whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment, and whether it is carried out during, or on the termination of, their employment".
    It is more convenient to start with an explanation of Amendments Nos. 278, 279 and 280. These are all Amendments to the definition Clause, Clause 158. They are Amendments to the definition of "a strike". Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 have the effect of removing from that definition the phrase
    "which is concerted by them"
    and replacing it by the simple adjective "concerted". It has to be a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers.
    Amendment No. 280 adds at the end of the definition:
    "whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and condidtions of employment, and whether it is carried out during, or on the termination of, their employment".
    The effect of those two definitions is to remove the rather odd necessity for

    1729
    demonstrating by whom the stoppage was concerted and to make it plain that a concerted stoppage of a group of workers
    "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute"
    at whatever point of time it occurs, and whatever the circumstances, provided it is a concerted, collective action, amounts to a strike in the context of the legislation.
    On that footing, I come back to the earlier Amendment, No. 135, which is probably the most important. It applies to Clause 63, which contains the guiding principles for workers' and ememployers' organisations. Subsection (7) provides that no member of the organisation should be subject to any unfair disciplinary action, in particular because of his refusing or failing to take any action which would constitute an unfair industrial practice. So far, the matter is unchanged. The provision would have made it unfair for an organisation to discipline a member for declining to take action which would itself be unfair, which meant declining to induce, call or procure a strike or lock-out in certain circumstances. That part is unchanged.
    Paragraph (b) provided that no action should be taken against a member who refused or failed to participate in an unfair practice. That probably added nothing to paragraph (a). Someone participating in an action would still be participating in the calling, inducing or procuring. The intention was to make it unfair for an organisation to discipline someone for refusing or failing to take part in a strike or lock-out called by the organisation if it was itself an unfair industrial practice.
    The intention is clear and is now set out in Amendment No. 135. It becomes an unfair practice for an organisation to take disciplinary action against a member who has refused or failed to take part in a strike which the organisation or any other person has called, organised, procured or financed, and which amounts to an unfair industrial practice. Similarly, it is unfair to discipline someone for refusing or failing to take part in other irregular industrial actions of the same kind. The other point which the Amendment makes clear is that it will be unfair for an organisation to discipline a member who has refused or failed to take part in a strike or irregular industrial action organised otherwise than in
    1730
    contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute; in other words, a refusal to take part in an industrial action directed towards political or other non-industrial ends.
    If someone declines and is thereafter disciplined, he can complain of an unfair industrial practice. It is probable that such action would be regarded as con trary to common law now in any event, but it was urged upon the Government in another place that the matter should be set beyond doubt, that it was unfair for a worker to be disciplined for re fusing to take part in a political strike. The urging in that direction came from, among others, members of the Liberal Party in another place. At least one member of the Labour Party went on record as saying that nobody on his side of the Committee supported poli tical strikes—
    Mr. Orme: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman continues, may I ask him, as this proposal was made in another place without having first been discussed in any way in Committee in this House, what action in the country motivated the Government along these lines?
    The Solicitor-General: I do not think I can, should or need identify any action that motivated it. [Interruption.] It is almost certainly the position that political strikes and disciplinary action taken against someone for declining to take part in a political strike are not capable of being upheld at common law.
    Mr. Orme: Then why make the Amendment?
    The Solicitor-General: But the matter is in some doubt. What is not in doubt is the general feeling of the overwhelming majority of people that it is wrong and unfair for workers to be disciplined for declining to support a political strike.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. and learned Gentleman said, I think, inadvertently, that political strikes and action taken against a person participating in them are not against the common law. Did he, perhaps inadvertently, make a slip there?
    The Solicitor-General: I said the probability was that action taken against someone for not taking part in a political

    1731
    strike was contrary to the common law. I do not want to go further than that on this point because I understand that there may be a case coming before the courts in which that point will be decided.
    This point could be argued in many different ways. The argument has been conducted by reference to the General Strike, and the view of Lord Simon is on the record, as are the views of Professor Goodhart and Sir Stafford Cripps. As I say, I do not want to say more on this point because the matter may be coming before the courts.
    Mr. Joseph Ashton: What will be the position if the reverse happens—for example, when dockers from the T. & G.W.U. took part in an unofficial march in support of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) a couple of years ago and were reprimanded by the executive of their union? This is exactly the reverse of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been discussing. If their union disciplined them for doing that, would that constitute an unfair industrial practice?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's question is in two halves. He asks, first, whether it would be an unfair industrial practice. The answer is "possibly not" in the present state of the law. As for the position under the Bill, if the union were taking or projecting disciplinary action against someone for taking part in a political strike, it would not then be disciplining someone for refusing or failing to take part in it. It would, therefore, be doing exactly the opposite of that prescribed in the Bill. So the answer to his question is that it would not be an unfair industrial practice.
    I suggest that the Amendment represents the desire and wish of the overwhelming majority of fair-minded people that it is not right for someone who declines to take part in industrial action on the instructions of an organisation in pursuit of an objective to be disciplined for his failure to take part in that action. It is to make that clear in response to representations from many parties and people, in line with the Opposition in another place—[Interruption.]—with at least one member of the Labour Opposition in another place—and with the general wish of the country, and I therefore
    1732
    commend the Amendment to the House.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Heffer: We believe this to be a curious and very dangerous Amendment. It was never introduced, or even proposed to be introduced, in this House, but was inserted on the fifth day of the Report stage in another place. On the surface, as one listens to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, it appears, as does so much of the Bill, to be reasonable. Its apparent object, as he said, is to safeguard the worker from any discipline by his organisation in the event of that organisation, or a group of individuals, organising, procuring or financing a strike other than as industrial action.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman has to some extent been torpedoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), from whose first-class question we discovered that if the dockers, or anyone else, act contrary to their union in a political action and are disciplined by their union for so doing, that is not an unfair industrial practice, but that if it goes the other way, and the organisation determines, or a group of individuals determines and the union backs them at some stage, to discipline a member who fails to become involved that is an unfair industrial practice. We all know that this hits at political strikes of any kind.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) asked why this provision was introduced on the fifth day day of the Report stage in another place, but I think that the reason is pretty clear. We had a situation where a number of unions—some of the printing unions, the A.U.E.W., the boilermakers, and others—called out their members not in a continuous strike but as a protest against the Bill. Contrary to what many people believe, the Transport and General Workers Union did not call out its members, but said that if those members acted it would back them. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that that day of protest did not lead to any disciplinary action by the unions against any worker who did not take part.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister is on strike today, whether official or unofficial, for he has not been

    1733
    here all day? I think that he is sailing on "Morning Cloud.".
    Mr. Heffer: One thing is quite clear; the Prime Minister has not gone to meet the workers at U.C.S. If he had, he would not have received the support which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had when he met the U.C.S. workers and discussed their problems with them.
    The question is whether that day of protest was an industrial or political action. There is no doubt that that is arguable, but that illustrates that it is not easy to define the line between political and industrial action. There is a good argument for saying that any legislation which directly affects the conditions of employment of workers, in addition to being a political act, is basically an industrial act. It is equally true that a struggle against legislation concerned with conditions of employment, and sometimes wages, is equally an industrial action, even though directed against the Government.
    That clearly brings out the dangers of the State becoming involved in matters which should be left to voluntary agreement between employers and trade unions. Once the State begins to become involved in the regulation of conditions of employment and the rules of trade unions, saying that unions must have a licence to operate, such as registration, there is a thin dividing line between industrial and political action.
    Communist and Fascist countries have experience of the regulation of the conditions of workers by the State. Strikes become illegal and, by its very nature, every strike becomes a political strike, whether intended or not. Even the smallest industrial action begins as an economic struggle and ends as a political strike. Defining the difference between political and industrial action is much more complicated than hon. Members opposite even begin to think.
    The Lords Amendment does not make political strikes illegal and no one suggests that it does, but it is the thin end of the wedge—as, indeed, is the whole Bill—for the State regulation of trade unions. If a trade union does not register, it will suffer a series of disabilities which do not now exist.
    The Government are embarking upon dangerous seas over this question of
    1734
    political strikes. We have already seen that because of the Government's action in introducing the Bill workers have become involved in industrial action which the Government have immediately said was political. We shall see more of this once the Bill becomes an Act and is operating. No doubt that is what is intended. There could be a situation six months from now when a flashpoint occurs and workers take industrial action against this Measure and become involved in unfair industrial practices. The argument will be that it is political action, and the Government will seek to use this Amendment and also seek to widen the whole issue.
    In another place my noble Friend, Lord Diamond, said of this Amendment;
    "This is a most important Amendment which affects the liberty of the subject and goes beyond the purpose of this Bill. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th July 1971; Vol. 321, c. 1169.]
    I think that he is absolutely right. Democracy is something more than elections every five years, something more than elections to local authorities. It is the involvement of the mass of the people at all levels in society. We could easily reach a situation in which workers take some industrial action to press some point of view upon their elected representatives. Instead of saying that the people should be involved in the democratic process, the answer of the Government would be that it was a political move and ought not to be allowed. This Amendment is the first step in making all political strikes illegal. It is the first shot in a campaign which will grow over the years. I want to draw attention to the present situation. I do not think that many people know of this but the trade union movement has long argued that in certain circumstances it is the right of workers to withdraw their labour, to use their industrial strength to influence political decisions. That is not my statement; it is a rule of the Trades Union Congress. I will read out the applicable rule.
    Rule 8 (k) says:
    "In order that the Trade Union movement may do everything which lies in its power to prevent future wars, the General Council shall, in the event of there being a danger of an outbreak of war, call a special Congress to decide on industrial action, such Congress to be called, if possible, before war is declared."

    1735
    That is the rule of the Trades Union Congress and it has existed for 50 years. Subsection (d) says:
    "They shall promote common action by the trade union movement on general questions, such as wages and hours of labour, and any matter of general concern that may arise between trade unions and trade unions, or between employers and trade unions or between the Trade Union movement and the Government, and shall have power to assist any union which is attacked on any vital question of trade union principle."
    Rule 8 (f) states:
    "They shall also enter into relations with the Trade Union and Labour movements in other countries with a view to securing united action."
    10.45 p.m.
    Rules which have existed in the T.U.C. for 50 years are not lightly used. The T.U.C. like my party, is dedicated to the principles of political democracy. We believe that we should change Governments by politically democratic methods. But we recognise that in certain special circumstances the need for trade unions to act in an industrial way for political purposes can arise. There are examples of this.
    In 1920 the dockers refused to load arms on the "Jolly George" to be used against Soviet Russia. I can bring matters nearer home. The dockers of Liverpool refused to load a ship going to Nigeria because they thought that the cargo would be used against the Biafran people. Recently, the shipyard workers in Belfast marched, quite wrongly in my opinion, from the shipyards to Unionist headquarters demanding action to put the I.R.A. behind bars, and in the process a number of people who may have sympathised with the I.R.A. or been pro-Catholic were intimidated by other sections of the workers involved.
    Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman gave the example of dockers refusing to load a ship because of their belief in the Biafran cause. Since that was an issue on which very strong feelings were held about both sides, it is possible that some members of the union in question felt very strongly about the other side's cause. If it was perfectly right for those who believed strongly in the Biafran cause to do what they did, would it have been right to have disciplined those who believed in the opposite side's cause for refusing to join in?
    Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, because it refers to the point that I intended to make—that this is a much more complex issue than it would appear to be from the black and white terms used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who do not even begin to understand the complexities of industrial life and political struggle in relation to industrial events. It is up to the Government to give us chapter and verse showing where the trade unions have disciplined the workers for involving themselves in political action. They cannot give chapter and verse.
    The Government are proceeding along an extremely dangerous course. How would they deal with the complex situation which has developed on Upper Clyde where the workers have taken a form of political action by industrial means? We do not know the outcome. This is not a strike. The men are working. It may well be that they should have been sacked. This is a peculiar new situation. All sorts of developments can take place in the industrial and political world. Hon. Members opposite need to be very careful.
    Mr. Loughlin: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the U.C.S. I wanted to ask the Solicitor-General to give some information in connection with paragraph (c) in this Amendment, but he scuttled to his seat. There are the words:
    "to take part in any irregular industrial action".
    That is not defined, but it could apply to the present situation in the U.C.S. yards.
    Mr. Heffer: Yes, that is industrial action. If certain workers decided that they did not want to involve themselves in it and disobeyed the trade union, refused to be involved and were brought before a disciplinary committee, what would be the position under this Bill? One has only to look at these possibilities to see the absurdity into which the Government are getting.
    I was pleased to read on the tapes tonight that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said on behalf of the British Labour movement that he is up on Clydeside to associate us with the shipbuilding workers in the right to work. Although this Amendment does not make political strikes illegal—
    Mr. Orme: Not yet.
    Mr. Heffer:—the danger is that it is the first step. It means that the Govern-men are moving in the direction of building a totalitarian State. [HON. MEMBERS: ["Oh!"] Oh, yes; the corporate State is inherent in this document. It goes much beyond the Taft-Hartley Act; it is not just American law but much more. It is typical class legislation. It is designed as part of the overall class strategy that this Government are adopting in their fight against the British working people. It is no good hon. Members opposite suggesting that that is not so. This is one prong of the attack. Attacks are being made on thinks like school meals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Yes, that affects our people, my class. It may not affect your class, but it affects my class.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that I am classless.
    Mr. Heffer: I am very glad to hear it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some hon. Members opposite are not classless.
    Attacks of this sort being made on ordinary working-class people; the three working days in connection with sickness benefit and short-term benefits being removed from those in short-term unemployment.
    This Government are a vile Government which have brought in a vile Bill. I put on record that when the Labour Party gets returned to power we shall remove this Bill from the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Bidwell: The Solicitor-General may recall that some time ago in these proceedings I asked him whether the political strike was outlawed under the Bill. He had to admit that as such it is not outlawed, but that is not to say that he would not like to outlaw it by means of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said, the Bill takes a dangerous step towards that concept.
    The fabric of the Bill should be seen, particularly by my hon. Friends who have not been so heavily involved in the detail of this massive, revolutionary incursion of law into industrial relations in the ludicrous situation where the right to strike is considerably diminished—certainly the right to strike unofficially
    1738
    —which has always been regarded as a cherished freedom of trade unionists because of the cumbersome machinery, which has not been of their choosing but has been mostly arranged by employers through the passage of history and needs considerable improvement. If we had before us that kind of proposal, we would consider rationally the way in which State agencies or courts and how the idea of the C.I.R. could be used in order to assist the process of building the classless society which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, claim you seek to belong to.
    This Amendment arises from the single-day stoppages which were but veritable skirmishes compared with what is the likely outcome of the Bill, allied to the other measures the Government are taking in their attack on the people's social services which have been so carefully built up since the war. The purpose has been exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in reference to the case of the dockers who marched to Parliament. This was not the first time that matter had been raised in the House; I raised it myself on another occasion. As far as we are concerned, this is not an argument about whether it is nice or nasty to discipline workers who refuse to take part in an industrial action or a particular action which goes beyond what can be described in the Bill, without this Amendment, as an "industrial dispute". That is not what the argument is about. It is not about the morals of the situation.
    As much as I detested the outbreak of racialism evidenced by the march of the Smithfield meat porters and the 200 dockers from the Royal Docks, I would not have proposed that the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which I am a member, should take disciplinary action against those workers. I preferred a more rational approach, and it is beginning to pay off because when we had another racialist outburst by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—pushed out by Tory Central Office, as most of his speeches are, whether they on this tack or any other, whether they be to a junior chamber of commerce or to the old ladies of Wolverhampton or some other meeting—there was not another march.

    1739
    The Amendment must be seen in the light of what is practicable. How is it supposed to put things right? This is the wrong way to do it. It reminds one of the old saying, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", because this is purely a question of the various organisations and the methods they have for disciplining their own members. The trade union movement responded to the national demonstration with mixed feelings. In some establishments, only a few stopped work; some of those who did stayed at home while others turned up for the outdoor demonstrations. At other establishments, there was complete or almost complete stoppage of work. Many workers did not join in what was hardly an official strike or national political demonstration. Many people participated at district level. One has to see the reality of this, that it is much better to leave the situation as it is.
    11.0 p.m.
    The characteristic of the British trade union movement is evidenced by the mighty T.U.C. peaceful demonstration, the mightiest outdoor demonstration within our memory. It was amazing in view of the tremendous number who came into the sunshine of Hyde Park and marched to Trafalgar Square.
    When we go to the earlier pages of trade union history, to the 1926 General Strike and the vicious anti-trade union Measure which came out of it—the Trade Disputes Act, 1927—that situation was not characterised at all by the violence we have seen in other countries but it is to that that the Solicitor-General has gone for guidance in trying to make changes in industrial relations.
    That is why at this eleventh hour before this Measure becomes law, we sound notes of warning. This is not just a move towards changes; it is not a cautious step, but a gigantic leap—a leap into the darkness.
    I do not relish this, but if shop stewards and shop-floor workers feel that normal and traditional means of dealing with matters of discipline of their fellow workers cannot be used and that they cannot demonstrate peacefully in the manner to which they have been accustomed about dangerous working conditions, or about a massive rise in the
    1740
    cost of living and their inability to keep pace with it, many will—whether it is correct or not and whether or not they can read this Bill, soon to be enacted—reach for other means of struggle. Those will not be the usual industrial practices, like the go-slow or the work-to-rule. I do not know how the Government, the C.I.R., and the Industrial Court will deal with workers for obeying the rule book. That is part of the imponderable.
    I fear that we might go back to the days of the Luddites when the workers feared the machines. If it is the case that one would jeopardise one's family by engaging in a short-lived unofficial strike or unfair industrial practice, it might be easier to resort to other means. There are other means of stopping the industrial machine than walking outside the gate, and that is my genuine fear.
    It is not possible to take the whole tradition of conventions and the enormous build-up which has taken place through the years and turn the system upside down overnight. The industrial situation cannot suddenly be guided into the paths laid down by these provisions.
    As we on this side of the House—with our considerable fund of knowledge of industrial relations gained from our backgrounds before we came to this house—have looked at the provisions of this Bill to reveal the many holes that exist and have pointed to the yards of legal jargon in which the Bill is shrouded, the Solicitor-General has run around trying to stop up these gaps. Indeed, this very provision is another attempt to stop up a gap in the Bill. But it will not work.
    If one looks at the matter in a humorous way—and it is difficult to do so since this is a serious subject—one might be better advised to go back to the workers and say "If in future you want to demonstrate against your employer, do not say you are demonstrating against the employer or are striking in connection with an industrial dispute. Say that you are striking because you do not like the Government." So far the political strike has not been caught by legislation. However, I would not put it past hon. Members opposite to come forward in future with some extra legislation to cope with such a situation. But, before that happens, the people will have spoken loudly on

    1741
    many other matters, and the days of the present Government are numbered anyway.
    The Conservatives thought they were on a winner and could win the middle ground of politics by bringing forward a Measure of this kind. But people make up their own minds on these matters and are showing what they feel in local elections and by-elections—as they will in the General Election, which will happen more quickly than many people expect, for a variety of reasons. The longer these debates go on, the more will the Government's failings be exposed.
    Mr. Alex Eadie: The Solicitor-General said that an overwhelming majority of people desired to see these provisions on the Statute Book. That is an assertion, not a fact. This Government have made many political miscalculations. One outstanding miscalculation was that this Measure would mean a political bonanza in the winning of votes. But the Conservative record at the polls has clearly demonstrated how the Government have seriously miscalculated the effect of this Bill on the electorate.
    This political miscalculation has spread to other matters. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply has a responsibility to explain the effect of this Amendment on the trade union movement. The unemployment figure in Scotland is now running at the disgraceful total of 134,000, a figure which has not been paralleled at this time of the year since pre-war days. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has decided to hold a special conference in August to discuss the problem of unemployment. No one can predict what that conference will decide, but, as their members are being subjected to political attack after political attack by the Government—school meals, school milk, unemployment among school leavers, and the rest—it may well be that the trade unions will determine that, in defence of their members and to demonstrate that the Government can no longer inflict the agony of unemployment on the Scottish people, they will take strike action.
    What will be the effect of this Amendment in such circumstances? The Scottish Trades Union Congress is a very respectable body, with access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of every Government. If its members
    1742
    decide to take industrial action, will it be illegal, and will they as a consequence be prosecuted?
    Mr. R. Carr: The answer is "No". Nothing in the Amendment has anything to do with what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    Mr. Eadie: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying "No." He knows what the implications of his Bill are and how members who do not take part in that industrial action will be affected. He cannot argue otherwise.
    Mr. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any Clause which has the effect which he fears? He will find it impossible.
    Mr. Eadie: I know the Bill, and I have taken part in debates on many of its provisions. We had a long discussion about the closed shop provision. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that will have no effect in relation to what I am suggesting? Of course it will.
    I turn to the question of financial support. We have had references to the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers. Is what they are doing now illegal? How is it affected by the Bill? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was up there today. The workers on the Clyde are conducting a sort of work-in, and one would hope that the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition will not lead to serious industrial action as a result of what the Government are doing. But if it is the Government's policy to try to starve people into submission in spite of the constructive action which the Upper Clyde workers are taking, and if there were industrial action taken as a result, would the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Mineworkers be caught for financing a strike?
    11.15 p.m.
    The Secretary of State may not be aware that yesterday morning the Scottish Area of the National Union of Mine-workers donated £1,000 to the fight of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers. Will that be construed as the action of an organisation abetting and assisting the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers if they should decide to come out on industrial

    1743
    action? Finance is mentioned in the Clause.
    The right hon. Gentleman should give us an answer, because the miners in Scotland are anxiously awaiting his verdict about the implementation of the Bill. Who will be prosecuted? Who will be affected? Will it be the miners' leaders or the miners' executive in Scotland who will be affected because they have donated £1,000 to the fight of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers? Will the Transport and General Workers' Union in Scotland be placed in a similar position? It is a ridiculous situation.
    The slogan of the miners—indeed, of workers everywhere—concerning industrial disputes has always been, "If you injure one, you injure all." The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware whether the passing of the Bill on to the Statute Book means that not only a trade union, its leaders and members will be prosecuted but that other trade unionists and their leaders who give help and sustenance to their trade union brothers will be prosecuted.
    If that should happen, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will make the biggest blunder they have ever made. Their Bill will be a prescription not for industrial peace but for industrial anarchy, and instead of its helping and assisting the country, we shall be in for a long, hard, gruelling time.
    Mr. Waddington: Some hon. Members opposite seem to have lost sight of the subject that we are supposed to be debating. As I understand it, we are not debating whether political strikes should or should not be lawful. We are debating the very different question whether a person who refuses to joint a strike which is avowedly political should be disciplined by his union.
    We are debating a subject which has been debated, I am sorry to say, for very many hours already during the passage of the Bill. I remember speaking on this subject, and I merely repeat—
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Member must not mislead the House. We have never had a discussion on political strikes on the Bill in this House because that subject was not introduced into the Bill until the fifth day of the Report stage
    1744
    in the House of Lords. It was not even done as an Amendment by the Government. Therefore, to say that we have discussed it in this House is totally untrue.
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member cannot have been listening to the argument I was advancing. We are not now discussing whether political strikes are lawful, because that is not the subject which is before the House. What hon. Members opposite have been discussing during the last few minutes is the very different subject, which I am prepared to discuss if hon. Members opposite are still prepared to discuss it, of whether members of unions should be disciplined by their unions if they refuse to take part in strikes which are avowedly political. This is a subject which has been debated for many hours during the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer indicated dissent.
    Mr. Waddington: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head—
    Mr. Heffer: Do not lie.
    Mr. Waddington: I remember making many speeches about it. I would merely remind—
    Mr. Heffer: Just do not lie.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House is entitled to expect better parliamentary manners from the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am sure that I am not misconstruing what hon. Members opposite have said during the last 10 minutes when I say that they have been arguing that it is an affront to the rights of the trade unions if they are forbidden and prohibited by law from disciplining members who refuse to take part in strikes which are avowedly political.
    I merely remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of what has taken place over the last few months. It seems absolutely absurd that any hon. Member of this House should try to support the argument that a man who has joined a union in order that that union might look after his conditions of employment, his pay, and all other conditions of work should find that he is required by that union to go on strike in protest against

    1745
    a political Measure, such as this Bill, of which he may be in favour.
    I have mentioned in this House on many previous occasions that we know from our own experience that there are many perfectly loyal trade unionists who want to be members of and to take an active part in trade unions so that they may look after their pay and conditions of work, but find that those unions are obliging them to go on strike in protest against political measures, such as this Bill.
    Some of the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite have been bizarre in the extreme. At one stage the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who taxed me a few minutes ago over my argument, advanced, in quite lyrical language, an argument which I think takes some sustaining in today's political climate. He said that there was a marked absence of genuine trade union activity in Russia and in Fascist States. He talked of the evils of the corporate State, as if inviting us to assume that the antagonism towards the Bill of Messrs. Jones and Scanlon was due to their antagonism towards Communism.
    We should keep our feet on the ground. Where is the great antagonism to the Bill coming from? It is coming from people like Mr. Jones and Mr. Scanlon who, to the best of my knowledge, until a few moments ago were members of the Communist Party. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve—
    Mr. Heffer rose—
    Mr. Waddington: Let me finish my sentence. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the neck to talk about the Bill being a move towards a corporate State. I think that this House is entitled to take note of the fact that many of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are—
    Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Waddington: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I complete this argument. I think that hon. Members are entitled to take note of the fact that some of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are the most vehement exponents of the corporate State.
    Mr. Rose: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now withdraw his allegation that two highly respected trade union leaders in this country are members of the Communist Party? Is he aware that neither of them is a member of the Communist Party? Is he further aware that the argument advanced against the Bill by people such as Lord Robens is that it plays into the hands of those who want to use the trade union movement for other purposes? Will he now withdraw that allegation?
    Mr. Waddington: I am certainly prepared to say, if such be the case, that neither of them is now a member of the Communist Party.
    Mr. Rose: Jones never has been.
    Mr. Waddington: But we know, as I have said, that some of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are the most vehement exponents of the corporate State. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Walton to advance as one argument against the Bill that if it becomes law we shall have taken one notable step towards the corporate State.
    The Bill, to my mind, is a most remarkable advance towards greater freedom for the individual—[Interruption.] I cannot see how any right-minded person can seriously say that it is not a most marked advance towards greater freedom for the individual if, by passing legislation, we say that no man shall suffer disadvantage as a result of opposing a strike which is called for an avowedly political purpose; namely, to protest against a Measure passed by the democratically-elected representatives of the people.
    Mr. Neil McBride: Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), I was struck by the fact that he used the French maxim in the colonial days of "Divide and rule". May I remind him that the French lost an empire in the Far East, as his party will lose the next General Election.
    I would not seek to interfere in any personal matter, but if I were associated with the legal profession my first maxim would be to check my facts before villifying members of the trade union movement. The Amendment is clearly directed against any trade union which may be involved in an industrial dispute with

    1747
    political overtones. The Amendment is directed towards that end—a so-called political strike. For a long time the trade union movement has been an estate of the realm. It is inevitable, therefore, that in industrial stoppages we shall be more and more concerned with social, economic and political overtones.
    This Amendment—I am speaking calmly but it is hard to keep emotion out of it—indicates the hatred of this Tory Government of the trade unions and their political associations, and for the Amendment the Government clearly have no mandate. The responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment who, despite his appearance of sweet reasonableness, is always able to follow the hard-line doctrinaire Tory political philosophy. Two cardinal points in the Amendment show that the Tory Government policy is meant to repress the trade unions and seeks to effect a divorce between them and the Labour Party. The Tory Party fears this alliance; it fears it as it fears nothing else.
    In propounding this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that many of the great reforms in the United Kingdom have taken place as a result of strikes which have been political and industrial, and it would be foolish of the Tory Party to ignore it. Millions of trade unionists have taken part in strikes in contravention of the legislation proposed in this Amendment, and to declare as illegal the act of taking part
    "in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute"
    is to misjudge the mood of 10 million trade unionists.
    The operative words on which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was basing his argument were
    "otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
    My hon. Friend's argument has been proved, while the right hon. Gentleman has been proved wrong. The people of the United Kingdom have no liking for regimentation or legal oppression or the minimising of the rights of free association. This is a lesson of history. This Amendment seeks close relationship with another Tory brain child of late
    1748
    and unlamented memory, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), and which in 1927 caused massive demonstrations of protest. The numbers attending those protests were only exceeded by the greatest demonstration in history, which was staged against this Bill this year. The opposition in 1927, as in 1971, was industrial and political.
    What legal definition is there in the words
    "otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute"?
    As I told the right hon. Gentleman last night, he is no legal theoretician. Neither is he. But it is his job to explain this. It is his brain child. Perhaps I should say that the paternity should be shared equally between him and the Solicitor-General. The United Kingdom owes much to the mass protests and strikes which have helped to change attitudes. The Amendment is designed to kill the social and political overtones and feelings with which the people are imbued. They will shortly be mocking the "defeat" of this Bill—which will never work.
    11.30 p.m.
    The Amendment has been bypassed by the development in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. That action, which is "irregular", is suported by thousands of unionists and is the opposite of a strike. It is organised and financed in terms unrelated to paragraph (c). It is a phenomenon of the times, supported by every section of opinion in my native land. Such an event makes nonsense of the Amendment, which reintroduces in different words the provisions of the 1927 Act, which dealt with strikes with an object other than the furtherance of a dispute or designed to coerce the Government, either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community.
    This attitude towards the unions is of long standing, as one can see from the pamphlet "A Grant Strength", published in 1958 by the Conservative Society of the Inns of Court. It said:
    "We therefore consider that the political strike should be clearly pronounced to be illegal—and by illegal in this context we mean a criminal offence."
    The power to strike sympathetically, socially, politically or economically is

    1749
    justified if without it employees have insufficient bargaining power. When workers have a great part to play in modern economic life, the fact that this matter has not been discussed in this House shows a regrettable lack of consideration by this Government for the democratic process.
    As a result of modern conditions and the trade unions' rightful desire for a fair deal and the right to work, methods will be adopted of bypassing the Amendment. No one knows the futility of this more than the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have misjudged the mood of the times, the mood of the British people, and the resilience of the opposition of the unions to this unwanted Bill.
    Mr. Orme: At the outset I asked the Solicitor-General why these proposals, which were not in the Bill when we spent long nights in Committee discussing the Measure, had suddenly been introduced, but he did not give a satisfactory reply.
    It is clear that they arose out of the 1st and 18th March stoppages in which my union was supported by the boiler-makers and the unions in the newspaper industry. Was that political action? The unions demonstrated on those days against this Bill to defend their industrial democracy and bargaining power in British industry. In other words, they were taking industrial action against an attempt by the Tory Government to impose political solutions affecting the unions' activities.
    There can be no doubt that this is the first political step towards direct interference by the Government in union affairs. It is designed not only to prevent unions from disciplining their members but to deflect those members from taking action, and so to place a complete ban on the industrial action of unions.
    We have not heard much from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the action of the N.F.U. in Cardiff when some of its members jostled one of my right hon. Friends when we were in Government. Those demonstrations represented political action to bring the views of the N.F.U. to bear on the then Labour Government. We did not suggest that they should be disciplined or put into prison.
    Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of the N.F.U. trying
    1750
    to discipline any of its members fur refusing to jostle the then Prime Minister?
    Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The argument goes far beyond the disciplining of members. This proposal is aimed directly at unions which take action which the right hon. Gentleman or the Government consider to be political. The Solicitor-General did not have the grace or honesty to admit that this arises out of the 1st and 18th March demonstrations against the Bill.
    It is not far from here to a corporate State situation. After all, reference has been made to action taken by workers which could have political overtones. One can think of the "Jolly George" and the action of the Lancashire cotton workers. What about the American revolution—[interruption.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite think this is funny.
    Mr. Curran rose—
    Mr. Orme: I will not give way. Very little time remains for the debate.
    There is nothing funny about workers who starved in the 19th century because of their support for justice, something which hon. Gentlemen opposite would never be prepared to do.
    Mr. Curran rose—
    Mr. Orme: No. I will not give way.
    This is a very important issue for democracy. We have seen what has happened in Greece. I was in Czechoslovakia at the time of the Dubcek situation, when one of the first things demanded was a free and independent trade union movement. We have seen what has happened in South Africa, where the trade union movement has been divided into black and white, and political action or real industrial action is forbidden. We have seen what happened recently in the Sudan. We can go all over the world, and the one place where there is a real, free, independent trade union movement—until the Bill gets the Royal Assent tomorrow—is Great Britain.
    But we are present this evening at the removal of some of our basic liberties—liberties for which we have fought for

    1751
    generations, and for which people will continue to fight. This Clause has overtones of some of the most unpleasant aspects of the Bill. Has anyone ever known of legislation being amended as it has been going through Parliament because of action outside Parliament just a matter of days away?
    I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get away with this sort of intimidation or threats or legislation. The trade union movement will fight, and, whether the Secretary of State calls it political action or industrial action, the freedoms we have had in the British trade union movement will continue under this Measure as before it, regardless of penalties or restrictions until the Measure itself is removed from the Statute Book.
    Mrs. Castle: It is very appropriate that we should end our debates on the Bill with this Amendment, because it has the same Alice-in-Wonderland quality as has permeated all the debates from start to finish. As I listened to the Solicitor-General explaining the purpose of the Amendment, I wondered how hon. Gentlemen opposite could retain enough enthusiasm for this legislation even to go through the Division Lobby tonight.
    In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Amendment was not really necessary. He said, with disarming frankness, that it was probable that disciplinary action against a union member who refused to take part in a political strike would in any case be contrary to the common law. If that is so, what we are engaged on is pro vision of litigation for litigation's sake. The Solicitor-General could not give one reason why we needed this Amendment or one example of the sort of situation with which it is supposed to deal. There is no legal or political necessity for it. He just got—I was about to say the seven-year itch, and it seems like seven years that we have been dealing with the Bill—
    Mr. David Mitchell: I have been listening to the right hon. Lady with great care. Does she realise that, although there is an existing right of redress for someone who is disciplined by his union for not taking part in a political strike, it can cost the members a great deal of
    1752
    money? It involves his getting a High Court writ. The costs may run to over £1,000, and this is well beyond the pocket of an ordinary trade unionist who finds himself in that position.
    Mrs. Castle: I must congratulate the hon. Member on being more ingenious than the Solicitor-General who, when we asked him why, if the right is there at common law, we needed the Amendment, replied that we might as well make it clear; and when we asked for an example or a case, all we got was silence. I repeat that with this Amendment, as during the course of a large part of the Bill, we have been engaged in the provision of litigation for litigation's sake.
    11.45 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely obsessed by the idea that everything can be tied up by some neat legal formula. I tremble to think what will happen to the hon. and learned Gentleman when our discussions on the Bill come to an end. It will be like taking away his necessary drug which has inspired all his activity. He will be wandering around like a lost spirit when he does not have a Clause to draft or redraft, or another Amendment, for perhaps years and years. We may have a serious situation with the psychological collapse of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am anxious for his health.
    We turn to the second limb—if I may get as legalistic as we shall all have to get—of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Even if it is necessary, what does the Amendment do? My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a telling intervention asking the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would be an unfair industrial practice to discipline dockers who downed tools in support of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and we know that his views are highly political.
    Irreverent voices were heard calling out from this side of the House, "That got you, Geoffrey." But we underestimated the ingenuity and rationality of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said, "Not at all, because dockers who demonstrated in favour of the racist views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, were taking political action, and it is an unfair industrial practice only to

    1753
    discipline them for refusing or failing to do so." If the Gilbertian essence of this situation does not strike hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are beyond redemption.
    This means that it is not an unfair industrial practice for workers to take political action against the advice of their trade union; there is nothing wrong with that; all this talk about political strikes is totally irrelevant to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is not wrong to take political action against the union's advice but it is wrong—it is this naughty thing, an unfair industrial practice—for the union to discipline members who refuse to take part in a collective decision of the union.
    I should have thought that that was turning the whole philosophy of the Bill on its head in any case, for I thought that the only thing the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do was to get at the wild cats, at the mad hats who did not obey their union. I thought that that was what the whole exercise was about and that the right hon. Gentleman so loved the trade unions that what he wanted to do was to underpin their authority. By the hon. and learned Gentleman's admission, the Government are doing exactly the opposite by this Amendment.
    It is extremely appropriate that we should be having this swan song at this stage of the Bill on this Amendment. The witching hour is drawing near and at midnight the guillotine falls. Tomorrow the Government will be rushing with all speed to get the Queen's Assent to this Bill. "Look" they will be chanting, "we have done it. We have kept one election pledge. We forced the Bill through the House of Commons in the time limit we set ourselves. We did not mind what we sacrificed to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the Summer Recess." This had become the sole aim of the right hon. Gentleman's industrial relations policy, the sum total of this Government's contribution to this controversial problem. They did not mind what they sacrificed so long as they hit the deadline; they did not mind whether they sacrificed a proper examination of the Bill, they did not mind whether they sacrificed the rights of Parliament, they did not mind whether Parliament was stopped from voting, if they stopped Parliament, as they will be stopping it shortly, from saying whether it wants to
    1754
    accept or reject a series of Amendments which are very different in character.
    That does not matter. They say, "Our gauleiter gets things done." Here it is: this Government's one and only contribution to the solution of this country's economic difficulties! Unemployment may be at its highest peak for 30 years but at least they say they have outlawed the politico-sympathetic action of unemployed workers on the Upper Clyde. "That would be political action, would it not? It is that which would ruin the country." The number of working days lost through strikes during the miserable months under this Government and the loss of production may have doubled, but "Ah", says the right hon. Gentleman, "we have halved the number of those little strikes that last only three days and we always intended to 'go American, didn't we?".
    The trade unionists have marched off the Commission on Industrial Relations to a man. Not only Mr. George Woodcock, but Mr. Alf Allen, and Mr. Will Paynter have walked out, and the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of finding any trade unionist in any part of the political spectrum to serve on the Commission because of the rôle that he has given it under this Bill.
    "Yet," says the right hon. Gentleman, "there it is—our instrument for reforming procedure agreements and improving industrial relations." It will be busy doing that in the absence of the trade unions, in the absence of half of the industrial parties concerned. If the trade unions do not like the agreements which the Commission draws up for them, then the employer can impose those agreements upon them, as if, to use the tendentious words of this Bill they were "a contract freely negotiated." This is the level of debasement we have reached in the language of industrial relations.
    We talk about the sanctity of contract, about the extension of freedom. The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) talked about the extension of freedom under the Bill—[Interruption.]—the essence of contract. Yes, words mean what hon. Gentlemen opposite decide they shall mean. A contract, if it means anything, means a bargain freely struck, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is to impose procedure

    1755
    agreements and make them legally enforceable as if they were a contract. If words can lose their meaning in this way, there will be no language in which management will be able to talk to unions in industry.
    Tonight, when the Guillotine falls, I have not the slightest doubt that hon. Members opposite will repair to the Smoke Room and roll out the champagne again, celebrating the most successful take-over bid in Ministerial history. The Solicitor-General has moved in on industrial relations like the cuckoo in the nest, and the Secretary of State has not so much been pushed out of the nest as jumped out of it. We have watched him during the stages of this Bill crowded out of the discussion of one Clause after another for the simple reason that the Bill was incomprehensible to anybody but the Solicitor-General. Therefore, conciliation and common sense have abdicated in favour of the court room.
    As a result of this Bill we face a wave of bitterness among organised workers greater than this country has known for many a long year. What a commentary it is on this Bill that as part of its grand finale we should find it necessary for the first time in our history to be legislating about political strikes; what a commentary that is on the Government's policies; what a commentary on their unemployment policies; what a commentary on their "lame ducks" policy; what a commentary on their industrial relations policy. [Interruption.] Having been steam-rollered at every stage of this Bill, we on this side of the House have the
    right, before the steam-roller of the votes of the majority subservient party silences our protest, to be heard to the end, and we intend to be heard.
    We leave hon. Members opposite to enjoy their pyrrhic victory. They may have won the parliamentary battle; power, they have proved, is more powerful than argument. But have they won the industrial relations battle? Does any right hon. or hon. Member opposite seriously believe that? Any body who is honest and informed will admit that the industrial relations battle will be won only in men's minds. The supreme and sublime irony of this Bill is that the Government's only hope is that no one will take the slightest bit of notice of it. That is the Secretary of State's hope. That is what he is counting on—that the powers will not be used; that the legal paraphernalia will be ignored; that the trade union movement will forget the insults; that perhaps he will be able to retract. Perhaps eventually he will be able to win them back into consultation and to the conciliation table again. This is the net result of all these months of argument. There is not an hon. Member—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now required to put the Question forthwith.
    It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [28th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes, 222.

    Division No. 466.]

    AYES

    [12.00 m.

    Adley, Robert

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Clegg, Walter

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Braine, Bernard

    Coombs, Derek

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Bray, Ronald

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Awdry, Daniel

    Brewis, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Costain, A. P.

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Critchley, Julian

    Balniel, Lord

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Crouch, David

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Curran, Charles

    Batsford, Brian

    Bryan, Paul

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Bell, Ronald

    Buck, Antony

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

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Dean, Paul

    Benyon, W.

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Berry, Hn, Anthony

    Carlisle, Mark

    Dixon, Piers

    Biffen, John

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Channon, Paul

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Blaker, Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Drayson, G. B.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Body, Richard

    Churchill, W. S.

    Eden, Sir John

    Boscawen, Robert

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Emery, Peter

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Farr, John

    Kilfedder, James

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Fell, Anthony

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Fidler, Michael

    Kirk, Peter

    Rost, Peter

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Knox, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lambton, Antony

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fortescue, Tim

    Lane, David

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

    Foster, Sir John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Fowler, Norman

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Simeons, Charles

    Fox, Marcus

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Sinclair, Sir George

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

    Longden, Gilbert

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fry, Peter

    Loveridge, John

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

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Soref, Harold

    Gardner, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Speed, Keith

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Spence, John

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Sproat, Iain

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maddan, Martin

    Stokes, John

    Corst, John

    Madel, David

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Gower, Raymond

    Marten, Neil

    Sutcliffe, John

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Mather, Carol

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gray, Hamish

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Green, Alan

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Grieve, Percy

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Grylls, Michael

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Gummer, Selwyn

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

    Temple, John M.

    Gurden, Harold

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Moate, Roger

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Money, Ernle

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Tilney, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Hannan, John (Exeter)

    More, Jasper

    Trew, Peter

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mudd, David

    van straubenzee, W. R.

    Havers, Michael

    Murton, Oscar

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neave, Airey

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hay, John

    Normanton, Tom

    Waddington, David

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Nott, John

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Onslow, Cranley

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Hicks, Robert

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Osborn, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Ward, Dame Irene

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

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Hordern, Peter

    Peel, John

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Hornby, Richard

    Percival, Ian

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Wilkinson, John

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hunt, John

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Redmond, Robert

    James, David

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    Jopling, Michael

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Bishop, E. S.

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Booth, Albert

    Cohen, Stanley

    Ashton, Joe

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Coleman, Donald

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bradley, Tom

    Conlan, Bernard

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Barnes, Michael

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

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Barnett, Joel

    Buchan, Norman

    Cronin, John

    Beaney, Alan

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

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cant, R. B.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Carmichael, Neil

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    1758

    1759

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    John, Brynmor

    Palmer, Arthur

    Davics, Ifor (Gower)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    de Fraias, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Pendry, Tom

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pentland, Norman

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

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

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Judd, Frank

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Driberg, Tom

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kelley, Richard

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Dunnett, Jack

    Kinnock, Neil

    Richard, Ivor

    Eadie, Alex

    Lambie, David

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Latham, Arthur

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ellis, Tom

    Leonard, Dick

    Roper, John

    English, Michael

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Rose, Paul B.

    Evans, Fred

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

    Loughlin, Charles

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

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Silkin, Hn, S. C. (Dulwich)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Silverman, Julius

    Foley, Maurice

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foot, Michael

    McBride, Neil

    Small, William

    Ford, Ben

    McCartney, Hugh

    Spearing, Nigel

    Forrester, John

    McGuire, Michael

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Stallard, A. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mackie, John

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Strang, Gavin

    Golding, John

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Marks, Kenneth

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Marquand, David

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

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Marsden, F.

    Tinn, James

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Tomney, Frank

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Meacher, Michael

    Torney, Tom

    Hamling, William

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mendelson, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hardy, Peter

    Millan, Bruce

    Varley, Eric G.

    Harper, Joseph

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Molloy, William

    Wallace, George

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Watkins, David

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Weitzman, David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Whitehead, Philip

    Horam, John

    Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Moyle, Roland

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Murray, Ronald King

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Woof, Robert

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Hunter, Adam

    Oram, Bert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Janner, Greville

    Orme, Stanley

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

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

    Mr. Speaker: I am now required to designate those of the remaining Lords Amendments which appear to involve Privilege. They are Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 144, 145, 149, 170, 171 and 177.
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those so designated by Mr. Speaker.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
    Mr. Heffer: No. Each Amendment should be taken separately.
    Mr. Speaker: First I have to put the general Question and then put the Question afterwards on each designated Amendment. [Interruption.]
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 217.

    Division No. 467.]

    AYES

    [12.11 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Fortescue, Tim

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Foster, Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Fowler, Norman

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Fox, Marcus

    Maddan, Martin

    Atkins, Humphrey

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

    Madel, David

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fry, Peter

    Mather, Carol

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Maude, Angus

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Gardner, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Balniel, Lord

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Batsford, Brian

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

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

    Bell, Ronald

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Moate, Roger

    Benyon, W.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Money, Ernle

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Gorst, John

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Biffen, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    More, Jasper

    Blaker, Peter

    Gray, Hamish

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicaster, S.W.)

    Green, Alan

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Body, Richard

    Grieve, Percy

    Mudd, David

    Boscawen, Robert

    Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Murton, Oscar

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Grylls, Michael

    Neave, Airey

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Normanton, Tom

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Gurden, Harold

    Nott, John

    Braine, Bernard

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Bray, Ronald

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Brewis, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Osborn, John

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Blocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Page, Graham (Grosny)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Page, John (Earrow, W.)

    Bruce-Gardyno, J.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hastings, Stephen

    Peel, John

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

    Havers, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Buck, Antony

    Hawkins, Paul

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hay, John

    Pounder, Rafton

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Carlisle, Mark

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

    Carr, Rt Hn. Robert

    Hicks, Robert

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Channon, Paul

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heffey, Joseph

    Redmond, Robert

    Chichester-Clark, R.

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

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hordern, Peter

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Clegg, Walter

    Hornby, Richard

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Coombs, Derek

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Costain, A. P.

    Hunt, John

    Rost, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ruseell, Sir Ronald

    Crouch, David

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Curran, Charles

    James, David

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Jessel, Toby

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

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

    Jopling, Michael

    Simeons, Charles

    Dean, Paul

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kilfedder, James

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Dixon, Piers

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Soref, Harold

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kirk, Peter

    Spence, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Sproat, Iain

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Knox, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Eden, Sir John

    Lambton, Antony

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lane, David

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stokes, John

    Emery, Peter

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Sutcliffe, John

    Farr, John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Tapsell, Peter

    Fell, Anthony

    Loveridge, John

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

    Fidler, Michael

    MacArthur, Ian

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    McLaren, Martin

    Tebbit, Norman

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Temple, John M.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Waddington, David

    Wilkinson, John

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Tilney, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Wall, Patrick

    Worsley, Marcus

    Trew, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. A.

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Mr. Keith Speed and

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Foot, Michael

    Marsden, F.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ford, Ben

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Archer, Peter (Rowey Regis)

    Forrester, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Armstrong, Emest

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Ashton, Joe

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mendelson, John

    Atkinson, Norman

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Millan, Bruce

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Barnes, Michael

    Golding, John

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

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Molloy, William

    Barnett, Joel

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Beaney, Alan

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Anthony Wedgwood

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Moyle, Roland

    Bishop, E. S.

    Handing, William

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Booth, Albert

    Hardy, Peter

    Ogden, Eric

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Bradley, Tom

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    O' Malley, Brian

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

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Oram, Bert

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

    Hattersley, Roy

    Orme, Stanley

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Oswald, Thomas

    Buchan, Norman

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Horam, John

    Palmer, Arthur

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Cant, R. B.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Feed

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pendry, Tom

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hunter, Adam

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Coleman, Donald

    Janner, Greville

    Prescott, John

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Probert, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Cronin, John

    John, Brynmor

    Richard, Ivor

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Roberts, John (Paisley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Roper, John

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

    Rose, Paul B.

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Davies, Denzil (Llanclly)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Judd, Frank

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kaufman, Gerald

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

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Silverman, Julius

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lambie, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Delargy, H. J.

    Latham, Arthur

    Small, William

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lawson, George

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Spearing, Nigel

    Doig, Peter

    Leonard, Dick

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Stallard, A. W.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Strang, Gavin

    Dunnett, Jack

    Loughlin, Charles

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Eadie, Alex

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McBride, Neil

    Tinn, James

    Ellis, Tom

    McCartney, Hugh

    Tomney, Frank

    English, Michael

    McGuire, Michael

    Torney, Tom

    Evans, Fred

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Tuck, Raphael

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mackie, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Maclennan, Robert

    Varley, Eric G.

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

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

    Wallace, George

    Watkins, David

    Foley, Maurice

    Marks, Kenneth

    Weitzman, David

    1764

    1765

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Woof, Robert

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Clause 66

    APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNION
    Lords Amendment: No. 139, in page 55, line 14, leave out "on payment of the prescribed fee "and insert" subject to the next following subsection".
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon;—
    The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 220.

    Division No. 468.]

    AYES

    [12.22 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jopling, Michael

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Emery, Peter

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kilfedder, James

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Farr, John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fell, Anthony

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Kirk, Peter

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fidler, Michael

    Kitson, Timothy

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Knox, David

    Balniel, Lord

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Lambton, Antony

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lane, David

    Batsford, Brian

    Foster, Sir John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Fowler, Norman

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Bell, Ronald

    Fox, Marcus

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

    Longden, Gilbert

    Benyon, W.

    Fry, Peter

    Loveridge, John

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Galbraith, Hn. T.G.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Biffen, John

    Gardner, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Blaker, Peter

    Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Body, Richard

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gorst, John

    Maddan, Martin

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Gower, Raymond

    Madel, David

    Braine, Bernard

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Mather, Carol

    Bray, Ronald

    Gray, Hamish

    Maude, Angus

    Brewis, John

    Green, Alan

    Mawby, Ray

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Grieve, Percy

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Grylls, Michael

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Gummer, Selwyn

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

    Bryan, Paul

    Gurden, Harold

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Buck, Antony

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Moate, Roger

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Money, Ernle

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    More, Jasper

    Channon, Paul

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mudd, David

    Churchill, W. S.

    Havers, Michael

    Murton, Oscar

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neave, Airey

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hay, John

    Normanton, Tom

    Clegg, Walter

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Nott, John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Onslow, Cranley

    Coombs, Derek

    Hicks, Robert

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Osborn, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Costain, A. P.

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

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Crouch, David

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Hordern, Peter

    Peel, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hornby, Richard

    Percival, Ian

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

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Dean, Paul

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Dixon, Piers

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hunt, John

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Drayson, G. B.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Redmond, Robert

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    James, David

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Eden, Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Waddington, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Stokes, John

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Sutcliffe, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wall, Patrick

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Rost, Peter

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

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Tebbit, Norman

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

    Temple, John M.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Wilkinson, John

    Simeons, Charles

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Tilney, John

    Woodnutt, Mark

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

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Worsley, Marcus

    Soref, Harold

    Trew, Peter

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Speed, Keith

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Spence, John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sproat, Iain

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Mr. Victor Goodhew and

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Mr. Tim Fortescue

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lambie, David

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Latham, Arthur

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lawson, George

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ellis, Tom

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Ashton, Joe

    English, Michael

    Leonard, Dick

    Atkinson, Norman

    Evans, Fred

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Barnes, Michael

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

    Lipton, Marcus

    Barnett, Joel

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Beaney, Alan

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Foley, Maurice

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Foot, Michael

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ford, Ben

    McBride, Neil

    Bishop, E. S.

    Forrester, John

    McCartney, Hugh

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McGuire, Michael

    Booth, Albert

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mackie, John

    Bradley, Tom

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    Golding, John

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

    Buchan, Norman

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Marks, Kenneth

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

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Marquand, David

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Marsden, F.

    Cant, R. B.

    Hamling, William

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)

    Meacher, Michael

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hardy, Peter

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Harper, Joseph

    Mendelson, John

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Millan, Bruce

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Coleman, Donald

    Hattersley, Roy

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

    Conlan, Bernard

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Molloy, William

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Horam, John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Cronin, John

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Moyle, Roland

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

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Darling, Rt Hn. George

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ogden, Eric

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hunter, Adam

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Janner, Greville

    O'Malley, Brian

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Oram, Bert

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

    Orme, Stanley

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    John, Brynmor

    Palmer, Arthur

    Delargy, H. J.

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

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Doig, Peter

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

    Pendry, Tom

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Pentland, Norman

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Driberg, Tom

    Judd, Frank

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Prescott, John

    Probert, Arthur

    Dunnett, Jack

    Kelley, Richard

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Eadie, Alex

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    1768

    1769

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Richard, Ivor

    Stallard, A. W.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Wallace, George

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Watkins, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Weitzman, David

    Roper, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Rose, Paul B.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Sandelson, Neville

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

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

    Tinn, James

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Tomney, Frank

    Woof, Robert

    Silverman, Julius

    Torney, Tom

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tuck, Raphael

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Small, William

    Urwin, T. W.

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Mr. Alan Fitch

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal.
    Lords Amendment: No. 140, in page 55, line 16, at end insert:
    "(5) Except as provided by section 77(5) of this Act, the registrar shall not register an organisation under this section except on payment of a fee of £25 or such other sum as may be prescribed."
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes. 220.

    Division No. 469.]

    AYES

    [12.34 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Crouch, David

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Curran, Charles

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hannnm, John (Exeter)

    Atkins, Humphrey

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

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Dean, Paul

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Deedes Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Dixon, Piers

    Havers, Michael

    Balniel, Lord

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hay, John

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Batsford, Brian

    Drayson, G. B.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Hicks, Robert

    Bell, Ronald

    Eden, Sir John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Benyon, W.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Emery, Peter

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Biffen, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Farr, John

    Hordern, Peter

    Blaker, Peter

    Fell, Anthony

    Hornby, Richard

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Body, Richard

    Fidler, Michael

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Hunt, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Fortescue, Tim

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Brains, Bernard

    Foster, Sir John

    Iremonger, T, L.

    Bray, Ronald

    Fowler, Norman

    James, David

    Brewis, John

    Fox, Marcus

    Jessel, Toby

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

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

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Crinstead)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Fry, Peter

    Jopling, Michael

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Gardner, Edward

    Kelfedder, James

    Bryan, Paul

    Gibson-Watt, David

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Buck, Antony

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Kitson, Timothy

    Carlisle, Mark

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Knox, David

    Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lambton, Antony

    Channon, Paul

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lane, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gorst, John

    Legge-Boiurke, Sir Harry

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gower, Raymond

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Churchill, W. S.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Gray, Hamish

    Longden, Gelbert

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Green, Alan

    Loveridge, John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Grieve, Percy

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Coombs, Derek

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Grylls, Michael

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gummer, Selwyn

    McLaren, Martin

    Costain, A. P.

    Gurden, Harold

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Tebbit, Norman

    Madel, David

    Redmond, Robert

    Temple, John M.

    Mather, Carol

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Maude, Angus

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Mawby, Ray

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Tilney, John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Trew, Peter

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

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Moate, Roger

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Money, Ernle

    Rost, Peter

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Waddington, David

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Scott, Nicholas

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    More, Jasper

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Wall, Patrick

    Mudd, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Walters, Dennis

    Murton, Oscar

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Neave, Airey

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Normanton, Tom

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Nott, John

    Soref, Harold

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Speed, Keith

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Spence, John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Osborn, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wilkinson, John

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Stokes, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Peel, John

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Percival, Ian

    Sutcliffe, John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Tapsell, Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pounder, Rafton

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

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

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    de Fritcas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Delargy, H J.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ashton, Joe

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Horam, John

    Atkinson, Norman

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Doig, Peter

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Barnes, Michael

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hunter, Adam

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Eadie, Alex

    Janner, Greville

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Edelman, Maurice

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Bishop, E. S.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Booth, Albert

    Ellis, Tom

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    English, Michael

    John, Brynmor

    Bradley, Tom

    Evans, Fred

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

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

    Faulds, Andrew

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch& F'bury)

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

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

    Buchan, Norman

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Judd, Frank

    Cant, R. B.

    Foley, Maurice

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Carmichael, Neil

    Foot, Michael

    Kelley, Richard

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Ford, Ben

    Kinnock, Neil

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Forrester, John

    Lambie, David

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Latham, Arthur

    Cohen, Stanley

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lawson, George

    Conlan, Bernard

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Leonard, Dick

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Golding, John

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Cronin, John

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Lewis Ron (Carlisle)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Lipton, Marcus

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

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Darling, Rt Hn. George

    Hamling, William

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Hardy, Peter

    McBride, Neil

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Harper, Joseph

    McCartney, Hugh

    McGuire, Michael

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    1772

    1773

    Mackie, John

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Pendry, Tom

    Strang, Gavin

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

    Pentland, Norman

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Marks, Kenneth

    Perry, Ernest C.

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

    Marquand, David

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Marsden, F.

    Prescott, John

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

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Probert, Arthur

    Tinn, James

    Meacher, Michael

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Tomney, Frank

    Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Torney, Tom

    Mendelson, John

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Tuck, Raphael

    Millan, Bruce

    Richard, Ivor

    Urwin, T. W.

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Varley, Eric G.

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Molloy, William

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Roper, John

    Wallace, George

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Watkins, David

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Weitzman, David

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Moyle, Roland

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Ogden, Eric

    Silverman, Julius

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Small, William

    Woof, Robert

    Oram, Bert

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Orme, Stanley

    Spearing, Nigel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Oswald, Thomas

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Mr. Donald Coleman and

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Mr. James Hamilton.

    Palmer, Arthur

    Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal.

  Clause 70

    APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION
    Lords Amendment: No. 144, in page 56, line 27, leave out "on payment of the
    prescribed fee "and insert" subject to the next following subsection".
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 217.

    Division No. 470.]

    AYES

    [12.44 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Fell, Anthony

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Fidler, Michael

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Channon, Paul

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Chapman, Sydney

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Foster, Sir John

    Balniel, Lord

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Fowler, Norman

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Fox, Marcus

    Batsford, Brian

    Clegg, Walter

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

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Cockeram, Eric

    Fry, Peter

    Bell, Ronald

    Coombs, Derek

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Gardner, Edward

    Benyon, W.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Costain, A. P.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Biffen, John

    Critchley, Julian

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Crouch, David

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Blaker, Peter

    Curran, Charles

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Body, Richard

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Goodhew, Victor

    Boscawen, Robert

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

    Gorst, John

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Dean, Paul

    Gower, Raymond

    Bowden, Andrew

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Dixon, Piers

    Gray, Hamish

    Braine, Bernard

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Green, Alan

    Bray, Ronald

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Grieve, Percy

    Brewis, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Grylls, Michael

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Eden, Sir John

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gurden, Harold

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Bryan, Paul

    Emery, Peter

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Buck, Antony

    Farr, John

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Maddan, Martin

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mather, Carol

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Maude, Angus

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

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mawby, Ray

    Soref, Harold

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Speed, Keith

    Hastings, Stephen

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spence, John

    Havers, Michael

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Sproat, Iain

    Hawkins, Paul

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

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hay, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Moate, Roger

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Money, Ernle

    Stokes, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Sutcliffe, John

    Hiley, Joseph

    More, Jasper

    Tapsell, Peter

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

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Hordern, Peter

    Murton, Oscar

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Hornby, Richard

    Neave, Airey

    Tebbit, Norman

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Normanton, Tom

    Temple, John M.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Nott, John

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hunt, John

    Osborn, John

    Tilney, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Trew, Peter

    James, David

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Jessel, Toby

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Peel, John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Jopling, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Waddington, David

    Kilfedder, James

    Pounder, Rafton

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Kinsey, J. R.

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

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Kirk, Peter

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Wall, Patrick

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Walters, Dennis

    Knox, David

    Redmond, Robert

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lambton, Antony

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Lane, David

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wilkinson, John

    Loveridge, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rost, Peter

    Woodnutt, Mark

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Worsley, Marcus

    McLaren, Martin

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Simeons, Charles

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Eadie, Alex

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Conlan, Bernard

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Ellis, Tom

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    English, Michael

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Evans, Fred

    Barnes, Michael

    Cronin, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Barnett, Joel

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

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

    Beaney, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Fitt, Gerard (Balfast, W.)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Foley, Maurice

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Foot, Michael

    Bishop, E. S.

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Ford, Ben

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Forrester, John

    Booth, Albert

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Bradley, Tom

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Galpern, Sir Myer

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

    Delargy, H. J.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

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

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Golding, John

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Buchan, Norman

    Doig, Peter

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

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Cant, R. B.

    Driberg, Tom

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    1776

    1777

    Hamling, William

    McCartney, Hugh

    Richard, Ivor

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    McGuire, Michael

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Roper, John

    Harper, Joseph

    Mackie, John

    Rose, Paul B.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Sandelson, Neville

    Hart, Rt, Hn. Judith

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Hattersley, Roy

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Horam, John

    Marquand, David

    Silverman, Julius

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Marsden, F.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Small, William

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Meacher, Michael

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Mendelson, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hunter, Adam

    Millan, Bruce

    Stallard, A. W.

    Janner, Greville

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

    Molloy, William

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Strang, Gavin

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Steehford)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    John, Brynmor

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

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

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Moyle, Roland

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

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Tinn, James

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

    Murray, Ronald King

    Tomney, Frank

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Ogden, Eric

    Torney, Tom

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Tuck, Raphael

    Judd, Frank

    O'Malley, Brian

    Urwin, T. W.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Oram, Bert

    Varley, Eric G.

    Kelley, Richard

    Orme, Stanley

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Kinnock, Neil

    Oswald, Thomas

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Lambie, David

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Wallace, George

    Latham, Arthur

    Palmer, Arthur

    Watkins, David

    Lawson, George

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Weitzman, David

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Leonard, Dick

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Pendry, Tom

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Prescott, John

    Woof, Robert

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Probert, Arthur

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Mr. Donald Coleman and

    McBride, Neil

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry is made to that effect in the Journal of the House.
    Lords Amendment: No. 145, in page 56, line 29, at end insert—
    "(5) Except as provided by section 77(5) of this Act, the registrar shall not register an organisation under this section except on payment
    of a fee of £25 or such other sum as may be prescribed."
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 218.

    Division No. 471.]

    AYES

    [12.55 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Channon, Paul

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Body, Richard

    Chapman, Sydney

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Churchill, W. S.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Bowden, Andrew

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Braine, Bernard

    Clegg, Walter

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Bray, Ronald

    Cockeram, Eric

    Balniel, Lord

    Brewis, John

    Coombs, Derek

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Batsford, Brian

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Cormack, Patrick

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Costain, A. P.

    Bell, Ronald

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Critchley, Julian

    Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

    Bryan, Paul

    Crouch, David

    Benyon, W. R.

    Buck, Antony

    Curran, Charles

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Biffen, John

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Carlisle, Mark

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

    Blaker, Peter

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Dean, Paul

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hunt, John

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Dixon, Piers

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    James, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Jessel, Toby

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Jopling, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Eden, Sir John

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kilfedder, James

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Rost, Peter

    Emery, Peter

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kirk, Peter

    Scott, Nicholas

    Farr, John

    Kitson, Timothy

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fell, Anthony

    Knox, David

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

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lambton, Antony

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Fidler, Michael

    Lane, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

    Foster, Sir John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Soref, Harold

    Fowler, Norman

    Loveridge, John

    Spence, John

    Fox, Marcus

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Sproat, Iain

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

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fry, Peter

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    McLaren, Martin

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Gardner, Edward

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Stokes, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Sutcliffe, John

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Maddan, Martin

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Madel, David

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

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mather, Carol

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Gorst, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Tebbit, Norman

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Temple, John M.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Gray, Hamish

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Green, Alan

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

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Tilney, John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Moate, Roger

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Grylls, Michael

    Money, Ernle

    Trew, Peter

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Gurden, Harold

    Montgomery, Fergus

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    More, Jasper

    Vanghan, Dr. Gerard

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Walder, David (Clithenoe)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mudd, David

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Murton, Oscar

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Neave, Airey

    Wall, Patrick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Normanton, Tom

    Walters, Dennis

    Hastings, Stephen

    Nott, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Havers, Michael

    Onslow, Cranley

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hay, John

    Osborn, John

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Owen, Idris

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Hicks, Robert

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Wilkinson, John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Peel, John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

    Percival, Ian

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Worsley, Marcus

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Pounder, Rafton

    Hordern, Peter

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Hornby, Richard

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

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Mr. Keith Speed and

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Redmond, Robert

    Mr. Tim Fortescue.

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Reed, Laurance

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Booth, Albert

    Cohen, Stanley

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ashton, Joe

    Bradley, Tom

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Atkinson, Norman

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

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Barnes, Michael

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch&F'bury)

    Cronin, John

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Buchan, Norman

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Barnett, Joel

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow Sp'bum)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beaney, Alan

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Cant, R. B.

    Davidson, Arthur

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    1780

    1781

    Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    John, Brynmor

    Pavitt, Laurie

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

    Pendry, Tom

    Delargy, H. J.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

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

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Prescott, John

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Judd, Frank

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Driberg, Tom

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kelley, Richard

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Dunnett, Jack

    Kinnock, Neil

    Richard, Ivor

    Eadie, Alex

    Lambie, David

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Latham, Arthur

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roper, John

    Ellis, Tom

    Leonard, Dick

    Rose, Paul B.

    English, Michael

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Sandelson, Neville

    Evans, Fred

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lipton, Marcus

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

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

    Loughlin, Charles

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Silverman, Julius

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Skinner, Dennis

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McBride, Neil

    Small, William

    Foley, Maurice

    McCartney, Hugh

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Foot, Michael

    McGuire, Michael

    Spearing, Nigel

    Ford, Ben

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Forrester, John

    Mackie, John

    Stallard, A. W.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Freeson, Reginald

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Gilbert, Dr. John

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

    Strang, Gavin

    Golding, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Marquand, David

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

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Marsden, F.

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Meacher, Michael

    Tinn, James

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mendelson, John

    Torney, Tom

    Hamling, William

    Millan, Bruce

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hardy, Peter

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

    Varley, Eric G.

    Harper, Joseph

    Molloy, William

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Wallace, George

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Watkins, David

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Weitzman, David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Moyle, Roland

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Horam, John

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Murray, Ronald King

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Ogden, Eric

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, Bert

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Orme, Stanley

    Woof, Robert

    Hunter Adam

    Oswald, Thomas

    Janner, Greville

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    Mr. Donald Coleman and

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

    Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an
    1782
    entry is made to that effect in the Journal of the House.

  Clause 72

    INCORPORATION AND VESTING OF PROPERTY
    Lords Amendment: No. 149, in page 57, line 11, at end insert:
    "and any liability or obligation to which any person is for the time being subject in his capacity as a trustee for the organisation shall by virtue of this section be transferred to the organisation.
    () Nothing in section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 (which requires certain Acts to be stamped as conveyances on sale) shall be taken as applying to this Act."
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 217.

    Division No. 472.]

    AYES

    [1.6 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Eden, Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jopling, Michael

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Emery, Peter

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kilfedder, James

    Awdry, Daniel

    Farr, John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fell, Anthony

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Kirk, Peter

    Balniel, Lord

    Fidler, Michael

    Kitson, Timothy

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Knox, David

    Batsford, Brian

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Lambton, Antony

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lane, David

    Bell, Ronald

    Fortescue, Tim

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Foster, Sir John

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Benyon, W.

    Fowler, Norman

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Fox, Marcus

    Longden, Gilbert

    Biffen, John

    Fry, Peter

    Loveridge, John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Blaker, Peter

    Gardner, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gibson-watt, David

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Body Richard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McLaren Martin

    Boscawen, Robert

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J.B.

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Braine, Bernard

    Gorst, John

    Maddan, Martin

    Bray, Ronald

    Gower, Raymond

    Madel, David

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Brewis, John

    Gray, Hamish

    Mather, Carol

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Green, Alan

    Maude, Angus

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Grieve, Percy

    Mawby, Ray

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Grylls, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bryan, Paul

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Buck, Antony

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Moate, Roger

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Money, Ernle

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Channon, Paul

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Chapman, Sydney

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    More, Jasper

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Havers, Michael

    Mudd, David

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Murton, Oscar

    Clegg, Walter

    Hay, John

    Neave, Airey

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Normanton, Tom

    Coombs, Derek

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Nott, John

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hicks, Robert

    Onslow, Cranley

    Cormack, Patrick

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Costa in, A. P.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Osborn, John

    Critchley, Julian

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

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Crouch, David

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Curran, Charles

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Hordern, Peter

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hornby, Richard

    Peel, John

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

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Percival, Ian

    Dean, Paul

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Dixon, Piers

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hunt, John

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

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Drayson, G. B.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    James, David

    Redmond, Robert

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Waddington, David

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Wilder, David (Clitheroe)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stokes, John

    Walker, Rt Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Sutcliffe, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Walters, Dennis

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rost, Peter

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Scott, Nicholas

    Tebbit, Norman

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Temple, John M.

    Wilkinson, John

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

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn, Mrs. Margaret

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Simeons, Charles

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Tilney, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

    Trew, Peter

    Soref, Harold

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Speed, Keith

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

    Spence, John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Mr. Victor Goodhew.

    Sproat, Iain

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lambie, David

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ellis, Tom

    Latham, Arthur

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    English, Michael

    Lawson, George

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, Fred

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Atkinson, Norman

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Barnes, Michael

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Barnett, Joel

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Beaney, Alan

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Foley, Maurice

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Foot, Michael

    McBride, Neil

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ford, Ben

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bishop, E. S.

    Forrester, John

    McGuire, Michael

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Booth, Albert

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mackie, John

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Maclennan, Robert

    Bradley, Tom

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Golding, John

    McNamara, J. Kevin

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Buchan, Norman

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Marquand, David

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

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Marsden, F.

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Cant, R. B.

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Meacher, Michael

    Carmichale, Neil

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hardy, Peter

    Mendelson, John

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Harper, Joseph

    Millan, Bruce

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

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

    Coleman, Donald

    Hattersley, Roy

    Molloy, William

    conlan, Bernard

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Horam, John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Cronin, John

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Moyle, Roland

    Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Huckfied, Leslie

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Hunter, Adam

    O'Malley, Brian

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Janner, Greville

    Oram, Bert

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Orme, Stanley

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Davis, Terry (Bromegrove)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Delargy, H. J.

    John, Brynmor

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Pendry, Tom

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

    Pentland, Norman

    Driberg, Tom

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Dunnett, Jack

    Judd, Frank

    Prescott, John

    Eadie, Alex

    Kaufman, Gerard

    Probert, Arthur

    Edelman, Maurice

    Kelley, Richard

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    1786

    1787

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Richard, Ivor

    Stallard, A. W.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Wallace, George

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Watkins, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Weitzman, David

    Roper, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Rose, Paul B.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Sandelson, Neville

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

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

    Tinn, James

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Tomney, Frank

    Woof, Robert

    Silverman, Julius

    Torney, Tom

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tuck, Raphael

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Small, William

    Urwin, T. W.

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Mr. William Hamling.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): As the House is willing to waive

  Clause 87

    DUTY TO INFORM REGISTRAR OF CHANGES IN RULES, OFFICERS AND OTHER MATTERS
    Lords Amendment: No. 170, in page 68, line 19, leave out "together with the prescribed fee".
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    its privilege, I will see than an entry is made to that effect in the Journal.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 215.

    Division No. 473.]

    AYES

    [1.15 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Aldason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Coombs, Derek

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Goodhart, Philip

    Awdry, Daniel

    Cormack, Patrick

    Goodhew, Victor

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Costain, A. P.

    Gorst, John

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Critchley, Julian

    Gower, Raymond

    Balniel, Lord

    Crouch, David

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Curran, Charles

    Gray, Hamish

    Batsford, Brian

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Green, Alan

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grieve, Percy

    Bell, Ronald

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

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Dean, Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Benyon, W. R.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Dixon, Piers

    Gurden, Harold

    Biffen, John

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Blaker, Peter

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Body, Richard

    Eden, Sir John

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bowden, Andrew

    Emery, Peter

    Hastings, Stephen

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Havers, Michael

    Braine, Bernard

    Farr, John

    Hay, John

    Bray, Ronald

    Fell, Anthony

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Fidler, Michael

    Hicks, Robert

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Bryan, Paul

    Fookes, Miss Janet

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

    Buck, Antony

    Fortescue, Tim

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Foster, Sir John

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Fowler, Norman

    Hordern, Peter

    Carlisle, Mark

    Fox, Marcus

    Hornby, Richard

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Channon, Paul

    Fry, Peter

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gardner, Edward

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Hunt, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Iremonger, T. A.

    Mudd, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    James, David

    Murton, Oscar

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Jessel, Toby

    Neave, Airey

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Normanton, Tom

    Stokes, John

    Jopling, Michael

    Nott, John

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Onslow, Cranley

    Sutcliffe, John

    Kilfedder, James

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Tapsell, Peter

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Osborn, John

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

    Kirk, Peter

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Knox, David

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Lambton, Antony

    Peel, John

    Temple, John M.

    Lane, David

    Percival, Ian

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Pounder, Rafton

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Tilney, John

    Longden, Gilbert

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

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Loveridge, John

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Trew, Peter

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    MacArthur, Ian

    Redmond, Robert

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    McLaren, Martin

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Waddington, David

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Maddan, Martin

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Wall, Patrick

    Madel, David

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Walters, Dennis

    Mather, Carol

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Maude, Angus

    Rost, Peter

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Mawby, Ray

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Scott, Nicholas

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

    Wiggin, Jerry

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

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Wilkinson, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Simeons, Charles

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Money, Ernle

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Montgomery, Fergus

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

    Worsley, Marcus

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    More, Jasper

    Soref, Harold

    Speed, Keith

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Spence, John

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Sproat, Iain

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Cronin, John

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Freeson, Reginald

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Ashton, Joe

    Davidson, Arthur

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Golding, John

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Barnes, Michael

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Beaney, Alan

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Hardy, Peter

    Bishop, E. S.

    Doig, Peter

    Harper, Joseph

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Booth, Albert

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Driberg, Tom

    Hattersley, Roy

    Bradley, Tom

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

    Dunnett, Jack

    Heffer, Eric S.

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

    Eadie, Alex

    Horam, John

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Buchan, Norman

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Ellis, Tom

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Cant, R. B.

    English, Michael

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Evans, Fred

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Faulds, Andrew

    Hunter, Adam

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Janner, Greville

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Cohen, Stanley

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

    Coleman, Donald

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Foley, Maurice

    John, Brynmor

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Foot, Michael

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

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ford, Ben

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Forrester, John

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    1790

    1791

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

    Molloy, William

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Silverman, Julius

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Judd, Frank

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Small, William

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Moyle, Roland

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kinnock, Neil

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Lambie, David

    Murray, Ronald King

    Stallard, A. W.

    Latham, Arthur

    Ogden, Eric

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Lawson, George

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    O'Malley, Brian

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Leonard, Dick

    Oram, Bert

    Strang, Gavin

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Orme, Stanley

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Palmer, Arthur

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

    Loughlin, Charles

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Tinn, James

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Tomney, Frank

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Torney, Tom

    McBride, Neil

    Pendry, Tom

    Tuck, Raphael

    McCartney, Hugh

    Pentland, Norman

    Urwin, T. W.

    McGuire, Michael

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Varley, Eric G.

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mackie, John

    Prescott, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Probert, Arthur

    Wallace, George

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Watkins, David

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Weitzman, David

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

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Marks, Kenneth

    Richard, Ivor

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Marquand, David

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Marsden, F.

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Roper, John

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Meacher, Michael

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Woof, Robert

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Sandelson, Neville

    Mendelson, John

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Millan, Bruce

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

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

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

    Mr. William Hamling.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry is made to that effect in the Journal of the House.
    Lords Amendment: No. 171, in page 68, line 20, at end insert "and, in the case of a copy of a change in the rules, shall be sent to him together with a fee of £10 or such other sum as may be prescribed".
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 215.

    Division No. 474.]

    AYES

    [1.26 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Bryan, Paul

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Buck, Antony

    Drayson, G. B.

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    du Carat, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Eden, Sir John

    Awdry, Daniel

    Carlisle, Mark

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Channon, Paul

    Emery, Peter

    Batsford, Brian

    Chapman, Sydney

    Farr, John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fell, Anthony

    Bell, Ronald

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Fidler, Michael

    Bonyon, W.

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Clegg, Walter

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Biffen, John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Coombs, Derek

    Fortescue, Tim

    Blaker, Peter

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Foster, Sir John

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Fowler, Norman

    Body, Richard

    Costa in, A. P.

    Fox, Marcus

    Boscawen, Robert

    Critchley, Julian

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

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Crouch, David

    Fry, Peter

    Bowden, Andrew

    Curran, Charles

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Gardner, Edward

    Braine, Bernard

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Bray, Ronald

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

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Dean, Paul

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Dixon, Piers

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Loveridge, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Goodhew, Victor

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

    Gorst, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Gower, Raymond

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Simeons, Charles

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Gray, Hamish

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Green, Alan

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

    Grieve, Percy

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Soref, Harold

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Speed, Keith

    Grylls, Michael

    Maddan, Martin

    Spence, John

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Madel, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Gurden, Harold

    Mather, Carol

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Mawby, Ray

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Hall-Davis, A. G, F.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stokes, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

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

    Sutcliffe, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moate, Roger

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Money, Ernle

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

    Havers, Michael

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Hay, John

    More, Jasper

    Tebbit, Norman

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Temple, John M.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Hicks, Robert

    Mudd, David

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Murton, Oscar

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Neave, Airey

    Tilney, John

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

    Norman ton, Tom

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Nott, John

    Trew, Peter

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Onslow, Cranley

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Hordern, Peter

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hornby, Richard

    Osborn, John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Waddington, David

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Hunt, John

    Peel, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Percival, Ian

    Wall, Patrick

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Walters, Dennis

    James, David

    Pounder, Rafton

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Jopling, Michael

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Kilfedder, James

    Redmond, Robert

    Wiggin, Jerry

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Wilkinson, John

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Kirk, Peter

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Knox, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Lambton, Antony

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Worsley, Marcus

    Lane, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rost, Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Longden, Gilbert

    Scott, Nicholas

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Cant, R. B.

    Doig, Peter

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Ashton, Joe

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Driberg, Tom

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Cohen, Stanley

    Dunnett, Jack

    Barnes, Michael

    Coleman, Donald

    Eadie, Alex

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Edelman, Maurice

    Barnett, Joel

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Beaney, Alan

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ellis, Tom

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cronin, John

    English, Michael

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dalyell, Tam

    Evans, Fred

    Bishop, E. S.

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Faulds, Andrew

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Davidson, Arthur

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Booth, Albert

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Bradley, Tom

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

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

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Foley, Maurice

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Foot, Michael

    Buchan, Norman

    Delargy, H. J.

    Ford, Ben

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

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Forrester, John

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    1794

    1795

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Galpern, Sir Meyer

    Loughlin, Charles

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Richard, Ivor

    Golding, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    McBride, Neil

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Roper, John

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    McGuire, Michael

    Rose, Paul B.

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Sandelson, Neville

    Hamilton', James (Bothwell)

    Mackie, John

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Hardy, Peter

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Harper, Joseph

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

    Silverman, Julius

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Marquand, David

    Small, William

    Hattersley, Roy

    Marsden, F.

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Spearing, Nigel

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Meacher, Michael

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Horam, John

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Stallard, A. W.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mendelson, John

    Stewart, fit. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Millan, Bruce

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Stone-house, Rt. Hn. John

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

    Strang, Gavin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Molloy, William

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

    Hunter, Adam

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Janner, Greville

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Tinn, James

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

    Moyle, Roland

    Tomney, Frank

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Torney, Tom

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Tuck, Raphael

    John, Brynmor

    Ogden, Eric

    Urwin, T. W.

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

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Varley, Eric G.

    Johnson, Waller (Derby, S.)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Oram, Bert

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

    Orme, Stanley

    Wallace, George

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Watkins, David

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Weitzman, David

    Judd, Frank

    Palmer, Arthur

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Kelley, Richard

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Lambie, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Latham, Arthur

    Pentland, Norman

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lawson, George

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Woof, Robert

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Leonard, Dick

    Prescott, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Probert, Arthur

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Mr. William Hamling.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see

  Clause 91
    EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN RULES
    Lords Amendment: No. 177, in page 70, line 23, at end insert new Clause D—

    INSPECTION OF REGISTERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
    "D. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to inspection of the registers and other documents kept by the registrar under this Part of this Act, and with respect to the fees to be charged for
    that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal of the House.
    inspection of any such register or other document."
    Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—
    The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 215.

    Division No. 475.]

    AYES

    [1.37 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Awdry, Daniel

    Batsford, Brian

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Bell, Ronald

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Balniel, Lord

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Benyon, W.

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Grylls, Michael

    Osborn, John

    Biffen, John

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Blaker, Peter

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Body, Richard

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Peel, John

    Boscawen, Robert

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Percival, Ian

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Bowden, Andrew

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Braine, Bernard

    Hastings, Stephen

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

    Bray, Ronald

    Havers, Michael

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Briton, Sir Tatton

    Hawkins, Paul

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Hay, John

    Redmond, Robert

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hicks, Robert

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Buck, Antony

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Channon, Paul

    Hordern, Peter

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hornby, Richard

    Rost, Peter

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Clarke, Kennet (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Clegg, Walter

    Hunt, John

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Simeons, Charles

    Coombs, Derek

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    James, David

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jessel, Toby

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

    Costain, A. P.

    Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Soref, Harold

    Critchley, Julian

    Jopling, Michael

    Spence, John

    Crouch, David

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Sproat, Iain

    Curran, Charles

    Kilfedder, James

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Davits, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

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

    Kirk, Peter

    Stokes, John

    Dean, Paul

    Kitson, Timothy

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Desdes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Knox, David

    Sutcliffe, John

    Dixon, Piers

    Lambton, Antony

    Tapsell, Peter

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Lane, David

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Eden, Sir John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Tebbit, Norman

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Loveridge, John

    Temple, John M.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Emery, Peter

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Eyre, Reginald

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Farr, John

    McLaren, Martin

    Tilney, John

    Fell, Anthony

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Trew, Peter

    Fidler, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Madel, David

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Fortescue, Tim

    Mather, Carol

    Waddington, David

    Foster, Sir John

    Mawby, Ray

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Fowler, Norman

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Fox, Marcus

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

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

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wall, Patrick

    Fry, Peter

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

    Walters, Dennis

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gardner, Edward

    Moate, Roger

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Money, Ernle

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    More, Jasper

    Wilkinson, John

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Goodhart, Philip

    Morris, Charles (Devizes)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mudd, David

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gorst, John

    Murton, Oscar

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gower, Raymond

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Neave, Airey

    Gray, Hamish

    Normanton, Tom

    Green, Alan

    Nott, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grieve, Percy

    Onslow, Cranley

    Mr. Bernard Whetherill and

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    1798

    1799

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Golding, John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Moyle, Roland

    Ashton, Joe

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Atkinson, Norman

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Ogden, Eric

    Barnes, Michael

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Barnett, Joel

    Hardy, Peter

    Oram, Bert

    Beaney, Alan

    Harper, Joseph

    Orme, Stanley

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hattersley, Roy

    Palmer, Arthur

    Bishop, E. S.

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Booth, Albert

    Horam, John

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pendry, Tom

    Bradley, Tom

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Perry, Ernest G.

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

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Prescott, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Probert, Arthur

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

    Hunter, Adam

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Gampbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Janner, Greville

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Cant, R. B.

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Canmichael, Neil

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

    Richard, Ivor

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    John, Brynmor

    Roper, John

    Cohen, Stanley

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

    Rose, Paul B.

    Coleman, Donald

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Cronin, John

    Judd, Frank

    Silverman, Julius

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Skinner, Dennis

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Kelley, Richard

    Small, William

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kinnock, Neil

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Lambie, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Latham, Arthur

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lawson, George

    Stallard, A. W.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Leonard, Dick

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Strang, Gavin

    Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Lipton, Marcus

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

    Doig, Peter

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Tinn, James

    Driberg, Tom

    McBride, Neil

    Tomney, Frank

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McCartney, Hugh

    Torney, Tom

    Dunnett, Jack

    McGuire, Michael

    Tuck, Raphael

    Eadie, Alex

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Urwin, T. W.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mackie, John

    Varley, Eric G.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Ellis, Tom

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    English, Michael

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Wallace, George

    Evans, Fred

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

    watkins, David

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marks, Kenneth

    Weitzman, David

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Marquand, David

    Whitehead, Phillip

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

    Marsden, F.

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Meacher, Michael

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Foley, Maurice

    Mendelson, John

    Foot, Michael

    Millan, Bruce

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Ford, Ben

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Woof, Robert

    Forrester, John

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

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Molloy, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Freeson, Reginald

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Mr. William Hamling.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Question involves privilege, I will cause an
    1800
    entry to that effect to be made in the Journal of the House.

HOUSING BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): As these Amendments involve privilege, I will cause an entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

ABERAVON
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
1.46 a.m.
Mr. John Morris: I am grateful for this opportunity at this late hour to raise some of the problems of the environment in the Aberavon constituency. The word "environment" is very much an "in" word these days. It means what to ordinary people whom I have the privilege of representing are problems of bricks and mortar, the rivers, the sea, tarmacadam and noise. It is the quality of the vicinity in which one lives, works and spends one's leisure.
Every effort is made these days to improve the quality of life. We see in the County of Glamorgan, in my constituency, work being done in land reclamation, and it is a tragedy perhaps that while all this is going on the local authority has to spend £2,500 a year merely to refit light fittings which have been removed by acts of vandalism. That is just one of the problems.
I want to concern myself this evening with three points: first with a caravan development at Porthcawl, and indeed in Wales generally. At Porthcawl there are about 5,000 caravans already, and there is a proposal to increase the number by another 1,000 at Trecio Bay. The history of this matter is that a development plan was approved as far back as 1958 to schedule this part of Porthcawl as a holiday area, and in 1961 planning consent was given. Nothing was done about this matter until latterly, and the developers' plans have lain fallow for many a year, the developers now want to activate them. That has resulted in the whole town being up in arms, and over 6,000 people, more than 60 per
1802
cent. of the population, have petitioned the Welsh Office and have expressed their concern about this new development.
The Minister of State has written and told me that this is a matter for the local authority. If it decides to revoke the planning permission already given, that is its affair. But the fact of the matter is that Porthcawl is an area with limited resources, a small town indeed with an above-average number of pensioners and people on fixed incomes, and it is totally out of the question for a small town of that size to consider the question of revocation.
No one knows exactly what the figures would be, but a range from £100,000 to £1 million has been mentioned. It is no good the Government wringing their hands and everyone saying that this should not happen and that there are enough caravans at Porthcawl. We are prisoners of the past, doomed to impotence.
The Government cannot wash their hands of this issue. The local authorities are deeply conscious of the situation. If our concern for our heritage and our coast line is to mean anything, the Government, the local authorities and the developers must act. Trust House-Forte has a major responsibility whether or not it carries on with the permission already given. I invite Lord Crowther to read this debate. He has the interests of his shareholders but also the good name of his company to consider. The answer may be for the developers, the local authorities and the Government to get together to work out a solution.
To underline the gravity of the situation, I quote a report by Dr. Thomas Sharp, who was commissioned by the Glamorgan County Council in 1964 to look into the problem of planning at Porthcawl. He said:
"I regret that I do not feel able to undertake this work. In my opinion, the future of the town has been so prejudiced by developments within the last decade that no worthwhile plan for the future can be made until the situation resulting from those developments has been corrected. Such correction will require policy decisions on a heroic scale and financial undertakings of an enormous and burdensome kind."
The injurious development to which he referred was caravan development. He

1803
ended this part of his report by saying that, where there was
"a great expanse of natural burrows and sand hills, there has been developed the most deplorable and civically cancerous growth that I have yet encountered in my long experience of urban diagnosis."
I am not against caravans. Indeed, I spent a most pleasurable holiday last year touring in one. In many parts of Wales there is a need for adequate facilities for the touring caravan. But I am concerned that someone should consider the picture comprehensively to see whether saturation point has not been reached in Porthcawl and many other parts of Wales.
I asked the Minister of State yesterday to give me the figures for each county in Wales, detailing how many permissions had been given for how many caravans and how many had been taken up. I was taken aback to be told that the information was not readily available. When I asked another question about the policy in this matter, he said, first, rightly, that this is a matter for the local authorities and that the Welsh Office calls in such applications for its own decision in exceptional cases; for example, where the issues raised are of national importance.
But if the Welsh Office does not have the figures for each county, and if it does not have the figures showing what has been and what has not been taken up, how can it know whether these are significant matters of national importance or of great importance in the locality?
I was flabbergasted by the inadequacy of the Welsh Office and its inability to give very important figures which should have been readily available. The Minister's advisers need a thorough shaking up to ensure that they provide him with the relevant information, so that when decisions of this kind are taken a full picture is put before him.
It is time that this nettle was grasped and that we had a thorough-going inquiry into caravan development throughout Wales, to establish first what the needs are—both for the stationary caravans and the touring caravans—and secondly their relevance having regard to the permanent population and how much saturation can be allowed.
We need to be able to look at the whole picture, and I urge the Minister to set
1804
up a national inquiry into the matter to ensure that all the facts are established; and in considering the Porthcawl problem he should call all the parties together in an effort to find a way out of the difficulty. The Government cannot wash their hands of this affair.
Because of the lack of time, I will refer only briefly to the development of the M4. This road is generally welcomed in South Wales, where we need a great artery to connect our industrial areas, and the whole of Wales, with the rest of the country. However, the proposed line of the motorway is causing concern, particularly to the residents of the villages of Cornelly and Groes, which are in my constituency.
If the present line of the motorway is maintained, it is likely that Cornelly will be split into three parts. At present it is a corporate unit, with the new part of the village grafted on to the old. If the road is developed according to present plans, the village will be completely split. Groes is an old village containing, among other things, a round chapel that is listed as being of particular historical importance. This village will be torn apart if the proposed line of the M4 is maintained.
I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister in attempting to comment on this matter in detail. I have written to the Secretary of State and I now ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that there will be a full public inquiry so that those concerned may ventilate their views. I hope that in the meantime no decision will be taken which might in any way prejudice the future of these two villages.
Another problem involving the environment is atmospheric pollution at Port Talbot. Some work has been done, and the British Steel Corporation has undertaken considerable expenditure to overcome this problem. The local authority has been a formidable watchdog to ensure that pollution is kept to the minimum, but there are emissions and break-downs, and when these occur life becomes thoroughly miserable for those living in the part of Port Talbot of which I am speaking, and particularly for housewives.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for a Written Answer I received yesterday to a Question I had asked about

1805
atmospheric pollution at Port Talbot. I was told:
"For many processes which give rise to atmospheric pollution, authorised levels of emission are not laid down but the best practicable means are required to render emissions harmless and inoffensive. Where authorised levels of emission have been laid down, the standards are being met in the Port Talbot area".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1971, Vol. 822, c. 282.]
In that Question I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was satisfied with the present position, but he did not answer that. I would be grateful for some comments on the whole question of atmospheric pollution at Port Talbot.
In the short time at my disposal I have dealt with some of the problems that concern my constituents. These are problems about the environment in which they live, work and enjoy their leisure. My constituents want to improve the quality of life in the area, and there is a deep awareness throughout the country that we must do our utmost to preserve and improve the environment.
At the end of the day, this is a question of bricks and mortar, of roads and of developments here and there. These are the hard facts of life, and our handling of them can either improve or spoil the quality of life in my area.
1.59 a.m.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) raised three matters concerning his constituency, which is an area embracing heavy industry and great beauty. It is also on the way to somewhere and is therefore subject to road development. I will deal with each of these points and give the best possible answers I can to the questions he asked.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposal for an extension of the caravan development on the east side of Porthcawl, and to caravan development generally in Wales. I am aware of the anxiety of many local residents about the Porthcawl proposal. The right hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged letters on the matter, and I have also received representations from the Porthcawl Civic Trust Society. In the course of this correspondence I have explained the present statutory position, but it is sufficiently important and relevant to what
1806
the right hon. Gentleman said to go over this again.
The Porthcawl Urban District Council, acting for the Glamorgan County Council as local planning authority, gave outline planning permission for the development of this 40-acre site as a holiday caravan camp as far back as March 1961. This permission required among other things the submission to the council of detailed plans of the layout of all buildings and structures to be erected on the site for approval before any work commenced. I am informed that the Porthcawl Urban District Council subsequently issued a site licence for 1,039 caravans. Detailed plans have not yet, I understand, been submitted.
It is for the county council to decide whether it now wishes to revoke the permission given in 1961. If it does, the revocation Order would have to be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for confirmation, and it would also fall to him to decide any appeal which might be made by the developers in the event of the council's failing or refusing to approve detailed plans. For these reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, it would be most improper were I to comment on the merits of the Porthcawl proposals. I am, however, glad to know that representatives of the developers and the local authority are discussing proposals in the light of the strong local reactions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
On the more general proposition of holiday camp development, it might help if I were to say a few words about the Government's rôle and attitude.
First, it is important to bear in mind that, subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, the decision on any planning application is the responsibility of the local planning authority. My right hon. and learned Friend calls in planning applications for his own decision only in exceptional cases. However, the previous Government gave general guidance on caravan sites in Development Control Policy Note No. 8, issued in 1969, which is accepted by the present Government as a fair statement of what is desirable.
This note states that planning policy is concerned to see that the touring caravanner has reasonable freedom to wander and explore and the static caravanner a reasonable choice of site to visit, but

1807
without spoiling the countryside, the coast or amenities which other people enjoy. The note points out the need to avoid conspicuous sites, especially on the coast, and to the importance of avoiding both the wider scattering of caravan development and the possible "saturating" of places which already have large numbers of caravans.
The Government's determination to safeguard the beauty of the British countryside and seashore for the future, which are very relevant to the subject matter of this debate, was made quite explicit in the Queen's Speech a little over a year ago.
The question of "saturation" is, of course, difficult to determine. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the mere number of caravans or of planning permissions in the whole of Wales, or even in a particular county, can at best only give us part of the story. So much depends on circumstances in specific locations.
The right hon. Gentleman has criticised the Welsh Office for not having precise information available about the number of caravans in each county in Wales for which there is in existence planning permission, and the number for which permission has been granted but not so far taken up. Although the precise information which he sought is not readily available, there is a great deal of other relevant information available. We know, for example, that there are some 60,000 caravans or caravan pitches in Wales, and we have fairly reliable information on a county basis. But the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a large number of the sites were in existence before the post-war planning legislation came into force and, therefore, pre-date the planning permission arrangements as we now know them. Hence the difficulty in giving him a precise answer.
As to the number of permitted caravan sites not already taken up or utilised, the fact is that the number varies substantially, with the seasons—indeed, it changes from day to day and, at the height of the season, from hour to hour. To obtain this part of the information sought by the right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, require a simultaneous physical examination of every caravan site in Wales, which is clearly impossible.
1808
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my advisers need a thorough shaking up, because what he is asking for is virtually impossible to give, but I hope that what I have said to him about the 760,000 caravans or caravan pitches in Wales gives some idea of the size of the problem.
Mr. John Morris: I am grateful for that explanation. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is responsible, the answer given yesterday was that the information was not available, and that was said without qualification. That reflects not only on those advising the hon. Member, but on his own responsibility.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the right hon. Gentleman studies that Question and Answer and reads my speech in HANSARD, he will find that he is not correct in that.
I appreciate his concern about the need for information to be available and I have arranged for this question to be discussed with the planning authorities to see what further information can be made available without diverting staff resources from other more urgent tasks. There is no evidence that planning authorities in Wales are relaxing their planning control on caravan development. Indeed, what evidence there is is to the contrary.
For instance, in the first 12 months of the present Administration some 47 per cent. of planning applications for caravan development were granted by the planning authorities; this compares with 56 per cent. granted in 1969. The number of caravans or pitches covered by the permissions granted in 1970–71 was 3,762. We do not have the comparable figure for 1969, but it was probably considerably greater. I should like to assure the House that we are conscious of the widespread feeling that there is a caravan problem in some parts of Wales and we recognise that this calls for discussion between the Welsh Office and the local planning authorities.
The second subject which the right hon. Gentleman raised was that of the motorway. He asked for a public inquiry into the proposed line of the M4 motorway within his constituency. I can give him an immediate assurance on this. Shortly after draft Orders under the Highways Act were published containing my right

1809
hon. and learned Friend's proposals for the line of this length of motorway, the Welsh Office arranged public meetings in both Groes and North Cornelly so that officials could explain the choice of routes to those affected and give the public further information to enable people if they wished to object to the proposals. At both meetings assurances were given that the objections would be the subject of a public inquiry.
I cannot yet say when this inquiry will be held. The period for the receipt of objections to the proposals ended today. The Welsh Office will now be considering all the objections and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. I understand the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. We live with progress, but progress does not al-always seem to be on our side and when a motorway comes to one's village, it is absolutely right that these matters should be ventilated and questions asked about them in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's third theme was that of air pollution in his constituency arising from the operation of the steelworks. May I briefly set out the statutory position on this subject and then the facts in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as I know them. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that most of the processes at the Port Talbot Steelworks are registered under the Alkali Acts and are therefore under the direct control of the Alkali Inspectorate which reports to the Secretary of State for Wales. Companies with processes registered under the Alkali Acts are generally required to employ the best practicable means to control the emissions of noxious or offensive gases so as to render them harmless and inoffensive. There are maximum levels of emission laid down for some of the processes in steel making. Most of the processes in the steelworks are in fact registered under the Alkali Acts and therefore come under the control of the district alkali inspector for the area. So much for the statutory position.
I now turn to the situation in Port Talbot. I am aware that about the middle of last year the operation of the steelworks coke ovens gave rise to complaints about a dust nuisance and noise nuisance arising from the operation of No. 4 blast furnace.
1810
I understand that the British Steel Corporation management at the plant made considerable efforts in the face of difficulties to improve the situation at the coke ovens and generally throughout the steel works. It is working in conjunction with the local authority and the District Alkali Inspector and I have been assured that these efforts by the Corporation will be continued.
Turning to smoke and sulphur dioxide pollution I understand that the figures provided by the Port Talbot Borough Council to the Warren Spring Laboratory of the Department of Trade and Industry show that smoke pollution in the area in many cases is below the levels in other parts of South Wales, while sulphur dioxide pollution is only slightly higher. This may seem surprising but it has to be borne in mind that domestic premises account for a considerable proportion of smoke and sulphur dioxide pollution.
As for the total emission from registered processes in the steel works I am advised by the District Alkali Inspector that there has been a steady decline in the level of emissions in recent years and where there are authorised levels of emission these are being complied with. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one who is in any way concerned is being complacent about the situation. The District Alkali Inspector, the local authority and the British Steel Corporation will continue to pursue vigorously the possibility of further improvements.
Finally, I know the right hon. Membe is interested in atmosphere pollution in the wider context. He showed great interest, as the Government did, in a study published by Mr. G. Goodman and Mr. T. Roberts of University College, Swansea, on mosses as indicators of atmospheric pollution by heavy metals in the Swansea area. Following publication of this report a group of experts met at the Welsh Office to discuss its implications.
It was decided to set up a working party of experts to prepare proposals for further research. The first meeting was held recently and detailed consideration is now being given to the sort of research which might be undertaken, including further monitoring of the atmosphere, the possible medical effects of heavy metal pollution of the atmosphere and the possible effects on agriculture.

1811
The right hon. Gentleman will recall one of the main conclusions of the first report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was that there was insufficient evidence about the effects of atmospheric pollution. I am sure he will agree that our actions show that we are treating this subject with proper concern. He has raised three
1812
important matters concerning his constituency. They affect an important part of South Wales and I hope my answers have gone some way to satisfy him on these matters.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Two o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Justices of the Peace
  Justices of the Peace
  Commercial Rating (Anderson Committee's Report)
  Commercial Rating (Anderson Committee's Report)
  Anti-flu Vaccine
  Anti-flu Vaccine
  Lanarkshire (Central Park)
  Lanarkshire (Central Park)
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Tayside Study
  Tayside Study
  Secretary of State (Official Residence)
  Secretary of State (Official Residence)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  B.B.C. (Fife)
  B.B.C. (Fife)
  Post Offices and Sub-Post Offices
  Post Offices and Sub-Post Offices
  Radar Spotters (Manufacture and Sale)
  Radar Spotters (Manufacture and Sale)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Act Notices (Administrative Expenses)
  Housing Act Notices (Administrative Expenses)
  Housing Accommodation (Conversion to Hotels)
  Housing Accommodation (Conversion to Hotels)
  Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporations
  Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporations
  Rents (Severely Disabled People)
  Rents (Severely Disabled People)
  House of Commons (Strangers' Cafeteria)
  House of Commons (Strangers' Cafeteria)
  New Palace Yard (Car Parking)
  New Palace Yard (Car Parking)
  Council Houses, Hill (Subsidies and Rents)
  Council Houses, Hill (Subsidies and Rents)
  Rented Accommodation, South Islington
  Rented Accommodation, South Islington
  Tenancies
  Tenancies
  Audley End House
  Audley End House
  Motorways (Surplus Top Soil)
  Motorways (Surplus Top Soil)
  Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
  Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
  Industrial Effluent
  Industrial Effluent
  South Coast Trunk Road (Fareham)
  South Coast Trunk Road (Fareham)
  Derelict Land (Development and Intermediate Areas)
  Derelict Land (Development and Intermediate Areas)
  Traffic Commissioners
  Traffic Commissioners
  Steel Box Girder Bridges
  Steel Box Girder Bridges
  Rail Closures (Bus Services)
  Rail Closures (Bus Services)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Scottish Economy)
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Scottish Economy)
  Micro-Electronics Industry (Scotland)
  Micro-Electronics Industry (Scotland)
  Landlords (Overcharging of Tenants)
  Landlords (Overcharging of Tenants)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Charter Flights
  Charter Flights
  Companies (Correspondence)
  Companies (Correspondence)
  Coastal Pollution
  Coastal Pollution
  Coal
  Coal
  Hovertrain
  Hovertrain
  Life Assurance
  Life Assurance
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Rolls-Royce RB211 Programme
  Rolls-Royce RB211 Programme
  Escalators (Safety)
  Escalators (Safety)
  Animals (Import)
  Animals (Import)
  Licensed Trade (Tied Houses)
  Licensed Trade (Tied Houses)
  Brewing Industry
  Brewing Industry
  Shipbuilding Credit Guarantees
  Shipbuilding Credit Guarantees
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Sale and Leaseback Arrangements (Taxation)
  Sale and Leaseback Arrangements (Taxation)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EMPLOYMENT
  Licensed Non-Residential Wages Council
  Licensed Non-Residential Wages Council
  Advertising (Taxation)
  Advertising (Taxation)
  Alcoholic Drink (Consumption)
  Alcoholic Drink (Consumption)
  Wages (Arbitration and Committees of Inquiry)
  Wages (Arbitration and Committees of Inquiry)
  Wage Rates
  Wage Rates
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  C. A. Parsons and Company Limited (Dispute)
  C. A. Parsons and Company Limited (Dispute)
  Redundancies (North-Western Region)
  Redundancies (North-Western Region)
  Cardiganshire
  Cardiganshire
  Merseyside (Training Centre)
  Merseyside (Training Centre)
  East Ham
  East Ham
  Chester-le-Street
  Chester-le-Street
  Maternity Benefits
  Maternity Benefits
  Professions (Participation by Women)
  Professions (Participation by Women)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Income Supplement (Publicity Campaign)
  Family Income Supplement (Publicity Campaign)
  Benefits (Explanatory Material)
  Benefits (Explanatory Material)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Bournemouth and Christchurch
  Bournemouth and Christchurch
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Wage-Stop Rule
  Wage-Stop Rule
  Contaminated Soups (Imports from U.S.A.)
  Contaminated Soups (Imports from U.S.A.)
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
  Supplementary Benefits (False Claims)
  Supplementary Benefits (False Claims)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  National Insurance Scheme (Reconstruction)
  National Insurance Scheme (Reconstruction)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sire Licensing
  Sire Licensing
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Levy)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Levy)
  LIVERPOOL CROWN COURT (WAITING PERIOD)
  LIVERPOOL CROWN COURT (WAITING PERIOD)
  FRAUD VICTIMS (APPORTIONMENT OF LOSS)
  FRAUD VICTIMS (APPORTIONMENT OF LOSS)
DEFENCE
  Caravan Park, Kempston
  Caravan Park, Kempston
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (American Personnel)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (American Personnel)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford (Flight Path)
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford (Flight Path)
  Army Garages, Belfast
  Army Garages, Belfast
  Defence Lands Committee
  Defence Lands Committee
  Devonport Dockyard
  Devonport Dockyard
  H.M.S. "Eagle"
  H.M.S. "Eagle"
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Local Community Projects
  Local Community Projects
  School Children (Transport Charges)
  School Children (Transport Charges)
  Works of Art (Export)
  Works of Art (Export)
  School Meals, Grants and Allowances
  School Meals, Grants and Allowances
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Overseas Civil Service (Widows' Pensions)
  Overseas Civil Service (Widows' Pensions)
  Overseas Government Servants (Widows' Pensions)
  Overseas Government Servants (Widows' Pensions)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Libya
  Libya
  Berlin
  Berlin
  India and Pakistan (Refugees)
  India and Pakistan (Refugees)
  Persian Gulf (Assets)
  Persian Gulf (Assets)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Schools (Assaults on Children)
  Schools (Assaults on Children)
WALES
  Farming
  Farming
  Trials (Waiting Period)
  Trials (Waiting Period)
  Police, Leeds
  Police, Leeds
  Education (Urban Aid Programme)
  Education (Urban Aid Programme)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Elected Council for Wales
  Elected Council for Wales

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.

GUN-TESTING ESTABLISHMENT: PROPOSED MOVE TO SCOTLAND
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the strong and growing local objections to the moving of the Gunproofing Establishment from Foulness to West Freugh in Wigtownshire; and to ask them whether, in view of the damage which will certainly be caused to agriculture, tourism and conditions of civilised living, they will either reconsider their decision or permit a public inquiry to be held.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of objections in some quarters locally to the proposed move of part of the Proof and Experimental Establishment from Shoeburyness to West Freugh. On the other hand, as was stated in another place on July 15, a number of local interests, including the South-West Scotland Tourist Association, are in favour, and the Wigtownshire County Council has accepted the proposal. Most of the additional land required can continue to be farmed under lease. The proposal will be considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who will decide whether a public inquiry should be held.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, which is not quite so disappointing as I had anticipated it
1148
might be, may I ask whether he is aware of the views of the local branch of the National Farmers' Union? And is he further aware that not only does it appear that 2,000 acres of excellent dairy farming land are liable to be lost, or nearly lost, if the scheme goes forward, but also that stock farming will be extremely hazardous in the coastal area in front of the guns? Further, has my noble friend heard the sad story of the two sows who aborted during test firing last month?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that in whatever quarter of the House a noble Lord may sit he would like my right honourable friend to send our deepest sympathy to the two sows who suffered this tragic loss. If this move comes about, I do not think that my noble friend need feel that the 2,000 acres he referred to will be sterilised; they will continue to be farmed. But in any event this is something that has to be looked into by my right honourable friend.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, have alternative sites been considered—for instance, the vast stretches of uncultivatable moorland on the Lancashire/Yorkshire borders?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it is necessary to have a coastal area in which to fire these shells. We have looked at every conceivable site, I would assure the noble Baroness, and there are overwhelming objections to every one. The truth is that if we are going to have an Army and if we are going to have guns, we must test them and fire them somewhere.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that if the people in Wigtownshire would prefer to have the Third London Airport, we in Essex would be quite happy to keep the Shoeburyness Proof and Experimental Establishment where it is at present?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend would find it convenient to travel from West Freugh.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that the creamery at Stranraer is one of the biggest in Europe, if not the biggest, and that it is at present short of milk? Is my noble friend aware that if the range goes to

1149
where it is proposed it will almost certainly put the local cows off their milk and there will be less milk coming into the creamery? In those circumstances, would he ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland whether proper compensation will be made through the Scottish Milk Marketing Board in this respect?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, while not accepting that any of these dreadful things are likely to occur, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any proposal of this kind causes considerable feeling in the locality? In addition to the farming interests and many others, is the noble Lord aware that some concern has been expressed by medical opinion in that area with regard to the services that might be affected? Would it not be advisable, if we all want it to be successful, to satisfy local opinion? Would not a public inquiry prove beyond peradventure that the new siting is correct?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a matter for my right honourable friend, but perhaps I might say that support for the proposals has come from quite a number of people: the Stranraer Town Council, the Stranraer and District Chamber of Trade, the Wigtownshire Trades Council, the Wigtownshire County Council and the Wigtownshire trade unions, who feel it should be supported since it will bring 300 additional jobs into the area. So this is not all one-way traffic, by any means.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend enlarge on the statement that every site has been investigated and say whether Loch Eriboll, on the North coast of Scotland, has been investigated? Secondly, can he say what will be the cost of demolishing the buildings and of their replacement elsewhere if the range is taken to West Freugh?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know where the first place is; but if it was at all likely to be suitable it has been investigated. With regard to the second question which the noble
1150
Earl asked, the cost of moving from Shoeburyness will be in the region of £20 million.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will it require another £20 million to demolish the houses at West Freugh and rebuild them elsewhere?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl, when we return next Session, will give me notice of that question.
LORD LEATHER LAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that although Southend has had the Foulness experimental establishment near to it for scores of years, yet its agriculture is prospering, its tourists are as numerous as ever and the standard of civilised living enjoyed by the people there is one of the highest in the country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will suggest to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that if he deems a public inquiry necessary the noble Lord should be asked to attend.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if the inquiry is in the North of Scotland with all expenses paid, my services are at his disposal.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, may I finally ask my noble friend whether he is aware that local opinion will be quite satisfied if a public inquiry is held? So far as I am aware, that is all that local opinion wants at present.

FOULNESS: PROPOSED DEEP-WATER PORT
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to complete their study of the concept of a deep-water port with associated industry in relation to the reclamation of Maplin Sands for the Third London Airport.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, we hope to complete this study during the autumn.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether the Cabinet Committee studying this matter will heed the Prime Minister's injunction that major investment decisions should be taken now to equip this country for entry into the Common Market in 1973? And can my noble friend assure us that the Cabinet Committee on this matter will not be deflected by the siren voices of those who suggest that the first MIDA should be on the West Coast of Britain instead of the East, when private enterprise has come forward with a suggestion for the Thames Estuary very much of the kind which the Government said they wanted?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think my noble friend will recall my Answer to him on May 20, when I reminded him that it has long been the practice not to disclose the details of the arrangements within the Government for the discussion of public business. Therefore, I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the noble Lord please bear in mind that while the planning authority for that part of the country is in favour of an airport plus a minor seaport, it is not in favour of a major seaport which would overcrowd that particular peninsula?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.

TRADE WITH GREECE
2.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government bearing in mind the present heavy imbalance in Anglo-Greek trade—

(a) what, in relation to that trade, are the main opportunities, for the future, for British exporters and importers;

1152

(b) whether encouragement is being given for investment by British firms in joint ventures;

(c) what is their attitude towards long-term loans tied to the supply of major capital equipment.]

LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is that the main opportunities for British exports to Greece are in the fields of machinery, both electrical and non-electrical; transport equipment: textile fibres, yarns and made-up articles. British imports of Greek goods consist primarily of fresh and dried fruit and vegetables, and also crude fertilisers and minerals. The amount and nature of British exports to Greece will be affected by a number of factors, such as United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community, with which Greece has an association agreement.
In answer to the second part of my noble friend's Question, investment in Greece, whether or not for joint ventures, is treated for exchange control purposes like that in any other non-sterling area country. It is normally possible for any worthwhile investments to take place. In answer to the third part of my noble friend's Question, the full range of the Export Credit Guarantee Department's facilities is available for trade with Greece, and the E.C.G.D. will give cover for commercial loans used for the purchase of capital equipment from British manufacturers.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that detailed Answer. With regard to the first and second parts of my Question, would not my noble friend agree that there are ample opportunities in Greece regarding mining consultancy, and also regarding investment in hotel and tourist facilities? Would he also agree that Her Majesty's Government are lagging behind the Governments of France, Germany and Italy in giving Government loans and that this is to be regretted since, as I think my noble friend will agree, the Greek Public Power Corporation is this country's electrical industry's largest single potential client? Further, as my noble friend referred to the E.E.C., would he be more positive in this matter—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I am certain that he is speaking with the very great knowledge that he always shows on these subjects. My noble friend asked about a Government loan from this country. So far as I know, and so far as my information goes, Her Majesty's Government have not been approached about such a loan. Should they be, I have no doubt that they will consider it, taking all the relevant factors into account. My noble friend was rather cut off on his third supplementary, but I think he was asking me to expand slightly on entry into the European Economic Community. Greece, as my noble friend will know, has an association agreement with the E.E.C., which was signed in 1961. The agreement would have to be re-negotiated with the members of the enlarged Community, including, of course, the United Kingdom if we join.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the best encouragement that we could give to Anglo-Greek trade would be if Greece returned to democratic government?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that there is much in what the noble Lord says, but I do not think that would he us giving encouragement.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as I was cut off previously, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not recognise that in effect Greece has now achieved stable political conditions; and as Greece is an associate member of the E.E.C., should we not now take advantage of the opportunities provided in Greece with regard to investment in that country?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a wider question than the original.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why we in this Parliament must conceive it our business to determine what kind of Governments other countries should have?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that that, again, goes wider than the original Question.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if British
1154
capital is involved we are concerned with the Governments of the other countries?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, I do not think I would agree that.

DEFENCE LANDS COMMITTEE: SURVEY OF SITES
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress the Defence Lands Committee, under Lord Nugent of Guildford has made so far.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Committee expects to have completed its first survey of all sites within its terms of reference by the autumn. It will then proceed with detailed examination of individual sites, including consideration of the many representations received from the general public and interested bodies. A preliminary review of coastal sites has been held by the Ministry of Defence and the Committee has confirmed that over 16 miles of coastline should be disposed of.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he tell us when the complete report will be ready? Secondly, if a decision has been taken to release 16 miles of coastline, is it to be done at once? Lastly, will he himself go down to Lulworth before a decision is taken on that important tank range?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it really is more for my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to say when his Committee will report than for me. It is a formidable task. A great many different sites are involved and I should doubt whether the Committee would have concluded their Report before somewhere towards the end of next year. With regard to the sites which I have announced can be given up, we shall give them up as quickly as possible, but it will take a considerable time, because there are a number of procedures to go

1155
through. I have already been to the site at Lulworth.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while we are grateful for the Report of the noble Lord's Committee, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will try to see that some of these sites are reserved for camping sites for teenagers and others, because they would make excellent reserves for this purpose.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that that will be borne in mind, if and when any area is given up. What I am primarily concerned to see is that there are enough facilities for the Services to carry out their training and exercises. We do not want to keep any more land than we must and I hope that we shall be able to give up some in the light of my noble friend's report. What happens afterwards is not for me, but I am sure that what the noble Lord has said will be borne in mind.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the middle 'fifties the Interdepartmental Committee was under pressure from the Opposition of that time to abolish sites and this had a disastrous effect on the occupation of land by the various Services? Is there not some reason to believe that there is some form of inter-Service jealousy as to the amount of land they hold? This seems to be important. So far as gunnery is concerned, I should have thought that there was a strong case for bringing together the various branches of the Army and the Navy to see that gunnery and the amount of land they occupy was rationalised.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that that is so, but even if it were true, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford would be able to see where there was jealousy and where there was common sense.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we gave our support when this inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford? Does it take a period of twelve months for an investigation into this matter to take place? Public opinion has been roused by the amount of land which is standing unused at the present time and which
1156
ought to be put immediately into commission.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord (I do not know whether he is speaking for the Opposition) and the Opposition still support the inquiry which I instituted. Those who have consented to serve on the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, are not doing this work full time. They are part-time members and have a lot of other things to do. There are something like half a million acres more to examine, and I think it is unreasonable to expect a part-time body of this kind inquiring into this matter—which is of great importance both to the Services and to other interests, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek has said—to do too much at once. I hope that they will get along as quickly as possible but that they do the job properly.

FUTURE BUSINESS AND THE SUMMER RECESS
2.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The question is: To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement on the future of the RB.211 engine?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock.
May I take this opportunity to inform your Lordships that to ensure that there is ample time for consideration of the Immigration Bill on the Report stage it will almost certainly be necessary for the House to return after the Recess on Monday, October 11.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for giving us notice of his intention with regard to future business. I am not sure whether the date he has given will be received with unalloyed enthusiasm. I think that some of us will regret that Her Majesty's Government have so arranged their legislative programme that so much is crammed into the end of the Session. Nevertheless, we note what the noble Earl says.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Earl said"almost certainly ". May I ask when he will be able to confirm that it is definite, because it makes a lot of difference to our arrangements?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, various consultations are going on and it will obviously depend on the outcome of these. If the consultations are entirely satisfactory to everybody concerned, then probably it will not be necessary to return on October 11. If they are not, then we must allow sufficient time for the House to discuss those problems where satisfaction has not been reached.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that I accept his threat.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may intervene for a moment, I should like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude not only to your Lordships for the way in which your Lordships' have borne the heat and burden of this long summer—and it has been a hard slog for all of us—but also to all those who have helped to keep the House running day after day and night after night. I do not intend to indulge in self-congratulation so far as we are concerned. Therefore I wish to confine my brief remarks to those who have helped us in discharging our duties. I feel that we really owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all members of the staff who have kept us going during these heavy past few months. We have placed a considerable strain on the Hansard team, the Doorkeepers and attendants, and indeed on all Officers of the House. I expect that all your Lordships will join with me in expressing our thanks to all those in the Refreshment Department who have kept us not only replenished but refuelled during our many late Sittings. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that from all points of view we have been admirably looked after. In conclusion, since I detect a slight note of end-of-term in the atmosphere, I hope that I may be excused if I wish your Lordships a pleasant respite in the holiday season.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot improve on the words of the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
1158
He certainly has spoken for us all and I will not repeat anything beyond saying this. May we also especially extend thanks to some of the staff who will be leaving us and wish them luck? I have particularly in mind Mr. Kemp, who has received the British Empire Medal, which is a proper recognition of his services, and many of those who work so well for us. May I also join in wishing the Government side, the Cross-Benchers, my own noble friends and the Liberals a peaceful holiday. And may I also include the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I accept the condescension which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has been good enough to confer upon us. I should like on behalf of my colleagues and myself to endorse everything which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said about the staff. We have been looked after with a courtesy and a consideration, and, may I say, with a professionalism, which has made this place a much more tolerable place to work in than it might otherwise have been. We are very much indebted to them.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the staff, and to say to the House of Lords that I am pleased to have a respite from the most reactionary Government that we have had since 1926.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if I might come down from the morning clouds to the hard facts, the Chief Whip told us that we should perhaps be returning on October 11. So that we may make arrangements, for how many days will this be? Will it be for one day or for the week?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, that will depend on the amount of time your Lordships take to discuss whatever Amendments there happen to be on the Marshalled List.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it is important to provincial Members, who have to find accommodation in London, having already made their arrangements for the 18th. Why is it so important that the Government should seek to press this Bill by bringing Members back? Now the noble Earl says that for how long we return all depends on the number of Amendments that are placed before the

1159
House on R eport and on Third Reading. Surely we have the right to the same facilities as are afforded to Members of another place, without being brought back in advance of their return?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is fully aware that legislation sometimes starts in another place, and sometimes here. The more controversial Bills tend to start in another place, and quite often they reach us rather late. This is a complaint which has been voiced by the Opposition for many years. We certainly voiced it in Opposition; noble Lords voiced it when we were in Government before; and I have little doubt that in due course we may find ourselves voicing it in Opposition again. Meantime, noble Lords are right to voice this objection, with which I may say I have great sympathy. But this Government, like any other Government, have a programme of legislation which they are anxious to complete before the House is prorogued. We could certainly come back on October 18, but it would mean that we should have to curtail discussion on this important Bill, which is the last thing the Government would wish to do. If, with the agreement of the Opposition, the Liberal Party and others, the discussion could be kept short, then we could come back on the 18th. But it seemed to me more important to warn your Lordships that there was a good chance of having to come back on the 11th, than to tell you that we were coming back on the 18th, and then later have to announce that we were coming back on the 11th.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that we can leave the matter there. I should be inclined to make a protest were I not conscious of the fact that we treated the Party opposite equally badly when we were in Government.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, some of us have come from another place and other Members of your Lordships' House have not been there. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has commented on what the Government Chief Whip has said, but we do not entirely agree with his comments.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.5 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. DOCUMENTARY FILM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Members of the Committee have had an opportunity to see the proposed film produced by Lord Kelburn. The Committee are of opinion that, subject to the conditions already agreed to by Lord Kelburn, consent should be given to its release and subsequent distribution as the producer wishes.
2. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee considered a recommendation from the Sub-Committee on the Library that in response to request a Silence Room and a Non-Smoking Room should be provided in the Library.
The Committee recommend:

(i) that the Truro Room should become a Silence Room;

(ii) that subject to the agreement of the Sub-Committee on the Library the first large room on the left of the main door to the Library should become a Non-Smoking Room.

3. SUB-COMMITTEES
The Committee on Works of Art was appointed as follows:—

The Marquess of Cholmondeley

Lord Amulree

Lord Henley

Lord Hood

with a recommendation that the following Lords should be co-opted to serve on the Committee:—

Lord Clark

Lord Goodman

Lord Cottesloe

Lord Robbins

with the Clerk of the Parliaments, with power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee authorised the employment of a temporary Executive Officer in the Parliament Office during the absence on sick leave of Miss J. P. Culverwell, the Examiner of Acts.
5. ATTENDANTS
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of the duties of the House of Lords' Attendants.
The Committee authorised the employment of two additional Attendants on the staff of the Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
6. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 7 dated 29th June, 1971—Pay of the Clerical Grades and Certain Related Grades;

(b) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 8 dated 19th July, 1971—Pay of the Middle and Higher Grades;

(c) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 10 dated 23rd July, 1971—Higher Clerical Officers Revised scale of pay;

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
7. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards under the Superannuation Act, 1965:—

(a) Provisional award of Pension and Additional Allowance to Miss Rosalind Clara Evernden, an Executive Officer, who retires on grounds of ill-health on the 1st October, 1971;

(b) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Henry Alfred Machal Kemp, B.E.M., Principal Doorkeeper, who retires on the 31st August, 1971.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I wish to raise one point on the recommendations of the Offices Committee. It concerns Recommendation No. 2, which, in case any of your Lordships have not got the Report perhaps I may read. It says:
" Accommodation. The Committee considered a recommendation from the Sub-Committee on the Library that in response to request a Silence Room and a Non-Smoking Room should be provided in the Library.
The Committee recommend:

(i) that the Truro Room should become a Silence Room;

(ii) that subject to the agreement of the Sub-Committee on the Library the first large room on the left of the main door to the Library should become a Non-Smoking Room."

1162
I am not aware of those who form the Library Sub-Committee, nor am I aware of the procedures which would allow noble Lords to give their views to that Sub-Committee before it comes to a conclusion. I raise this matter because I think it is one on which many noble Lords may take a view as regards the Smoking and the Non-Smoking Room. The proposal, as I understand it, is that the large room on the left as you enter the Library should be made into the Non-Smoking Room. Presumably, smoking would be allowed in the room into which we pass when we go into the Library, and that rather frigid room beyond where there used to be a telephone.
I raise this matter from two points of view. First, I think that noble Lords who use the Library would agree that the large room on the left is probably the most patronised, the most agreeable and, if I may use the expression, the most homely of the rooms. It is certainly a large room. It may be a deplorable fact, but I think the majority of your Lordships, including myself, are addicted to the habit, I trust in moderation, of smoking. Surely it is only right that the large room, the first room on the left, should be reserved for those who care to smoke, and the non-smokers, if that is the wish of the majority, should go to the room on the far side.
My second point is that if smoking is to be allowed in the main room as you enter the Library, and forbidden in the first room on the left, those who do not smoke will have their lungs polluted by the smokers in the main entrance and in the other room, and they will have to pass through this difficult nicotine screen. Surely, all those who do not smoke would prefer to enter into the unpolluted atmosphere straight away by the reservation of the first room as you go into the Library, and possibly, if necessary, the room on the right, for non-smokers, leaving to those of us with such deplorable habits that we occasionally have a cigarette, a pipe, or sometimes even a cigar, to the room where we could indulge in what I think is a very reasonable habit. Therefore I trust that the Library Committee will give an opportunity to noble Lords on all sides of the House, who may feel as I do, to express their views before any conclusion is reached.
3.9 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which is under fire at the moment, I have to explain that the Library Sub-Committee was first of all instructed by the Offices Commitee, which is a large and representative Committee of this House, to consider the possibility of recommending that certain rooms in the Library should be set aside, on the one hand, as a Silence Room, and on the other, as a Non-Smoking Room, The Library Committee carefully considered this matter, and consulted as many as they could of the Members of your Lordships' House, but always remembering the instruction that had been given to them, and then made a recommendation to the Offices Committee that the Truro Room should be a Silence Room and a Non-Smoking Room.
The Offices Committee then referred the recommendation back to the Sub-Committee, saying that they should think in terms of the Truro Room remaining the Silence Room and that the main room, now mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, should be, as it has always been supposed to be, a Non-Smoking Room. The Library Sub-Committee having had this instruction given to them, and being a very obedient Committee, then returned the matter to the Offices Committee with that recommendation. The Offices Committee, to my annoyance and to some extent to the annoyance of the Library Sub-Committee, had that recommendation turned down, and the recommendation which you now see before you is the recommendation of the Offices Committee to the Library Committee. This is the sequence of events which has produced this recommendation; and I may say that if this House does not accept this Report in this particular the whole thing will have to be gone into again in the light of the recommendation which will be made by this House to the Offices Committee and to the Library Sub-Committee. My Lords, I shall be glad to see the end of this.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, may I say that I have been a Member of this House for 25 years.
1164
Before this debate is concluded will some noble Lord tell me where the Truro Room is?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the Truro Room is next to the Refreshment Room and the Guests' Room; and the noble Marquess will see just inside the door a bell which can be rung, or which, in the old days, could be rung, and refreshments would be brought in. This facility is no longer available.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: And, presumably, that is to be the Silence Room in future?
LORD CHAMPION: That is so.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if the main room has always been considered a Non-Smoking Room, how is it that there are ash trays, matches and places in which to put cigarettes and cigars? Who did the monstrous unauthorised act of putting those things there?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, that occurred because smokers are a very undisciplined lot, and I am sure that the noble Lord is one of them.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord recollects the advice given by Lord Melbourne on one occasion:"If only they would have the goodness to leave it alone and leave us as we are!"
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, your Lordships have heard something of the family arguments that go on between the Offices Committee and its Sub-Committee on the Library. I should only like to point out to noble Lords that the question of the Non-Smoking Room on the left of the main entrance to the Library is not yet decided because it is subject to the decision of the Library Sub-Committee, and any noble Lord who wishes to express a view at a meeting of the Library Sub-Committee is entitled to attend. With that, my Lords, I beg to move that this Report be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
3.14 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [School milk for pupils in England and Wales]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out (" attains the age of seven ") and insert (" transfers to a secondary school ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. In speaking to it I shall in fact be covering the other three Amendments as well. In so far as I am able, I shall try to avoid a repetition of the arguments advanced when the Bill was in Committee. If I should stray a little from that intention I hope that your Lordships' House will be indulgent, because I shall only do so in order to make essential points. The Amendment itself is different from any which was moved in Committee, being in fact rather more comprehensive. I have drafted it with a view to remedying some of the defects to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, drew attention in regard to the fifth Amendment considered by the Committee.
It seems to me that I have an obligation to give your Lordships an opportunity to look once again at what this Bill sets out to do. It cuts off the free supply of one-third of a pint of milk each day of school for children aged between seven and eleven. There are exceptions: children at special schools are exempt, as are children certified by school medical officers as being in need of milk; and it confers upon education authorities the power to sell milk to children deprived of free milk—a privilege that local education authorities, so far as I know, have never asked for. Whatever drafting defects the Amendment may have, perhaps I may say, to its credit, that its purpose is crystal clear.
I should like to explain briefly why I wish to move this Amendment: first, the first Division on Committee showed that your Lordships were fairly evenly divided; secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made a number of comments such as—quoting first from the OFFICIAL REPORT, of August 2 (c. 863):
"… my heart warms to the Amendments."
Then
" I meant it sincerely when I said to the noble Baroness I had every sympathy with these Amendments."
The noble Lord also drew attention to drafting weaknesses in the Amendment. At columns 848 and 849 he drew attention to the consequences of an Amendment I moved, which would have held the age for the supply of free milk at the age of eleven instead of reducing it to seven as the Bill does, and pointed out that it would create anomalies.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give the House the opportunity to place on record the view that all children should have free one-third of a pint of school milk each day up to the time they transfer to secondary school. In that way the poor child, the child whose parents have an inadequate income, the handicapped child, the medically unfit child—in fact all growing children—will have during this most important time of their lives a daily intake of nature's most balanced food, supplying, as it does, the essential ingredients for health: and health is absolutely necessary in order that children may take full advantage of the educational opportunities offered to them. I referred to the decision to end free milk for children of secondary school age; but at least when that was done advice had been given that it was a safe thing to do. I still think it was undesirable, but there I express an individual point of view. No one throughout the discussion of this Bill to date has claimed that similar advice has been available. If the Government were sure that their action was safe and that there was no risk involved, we should not have had a proposal for monitoring, and we should not have heard as much as we have about the part that the school medical officer can play.
That brings me to the question of cost. The estimated savings under this Bill are £5·9 million for the current year—£9 million in a full year—less the cost

1167
of monitoring, less the cost of the extra work thrown on the school medical officers and their staffs, less the cost of the medical milk—all of them unknown figures. I wonder what thought has been given to the position that will arise in the small country school of 30 or 40 pupils with an age range from five to eleven, where infants and juniors share the same building and the same playground. At the mid-morning break the children aged from five to seven will have free milk. The children who are eligible will have medical milk, and the others may or may not get milk, depending on whether mother will or can afford it, or will not or cannot afford it. What a task for the teacher to differentiate between such a small number of children! None of us would envy any such teacher her task. How could the teacher possibly leave a small number of children without milk? What would she say to the child aged between seven and eleven, who had no money but who said,"Please teacher, may I have some milk?"Under the Bill the teacher has to say,"No ", or reply, You can only have the milk if the school medical officer certifies that you have need of it."
I return to the question that I have asked before because, so far as I have been able to gather, there has been no satisfying answer. What happens in cases where the supplier considers the order too small to justify the daily call? In Committee I drew attention to the fact that this point had been raised in at least two instances. There is discontent among local education authorities that they cannot—as the non-education authorities can—use the product of a penny rate in England and Wales and a twopenny rate in Scotland as a local option to supply milk if they consider that the ratepayers they represent and serve approve of it. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was a little too subtle when he spoke on this anomalous position. He conceded the right of the non-education authorities to spend the penny or the twopenny rate. Good stuff for local autonomy and greater local freedom! He warned them, at the same time that he recognised their right, that 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
1168
financing went down the throats of the pupils within its area. He continued that when you think of children going across the boundaries of different areas of local authorities, that would not be hair-splitting but would be an important and relevant point. He warned of the possibility that such milk wrongfully going down the throats of little children—one third of a pint a day—might be ultra vires.
He then proceeded to try to put the fear—I was going to say,"the fear of the very devil himself ", into those authorities, but he did not go quite so far as that. He certainly set out to give them what I am sure they will interpret as a warning to this effect. He said that it went without saying that the district auditor would have to be satisfied that such expenditure had been lawfully incurred. The noble Lord added that all that was said, as he put it,"in a helpful spirit ". The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, throughout our consideration of this Bill has had my sympathy, because I have found it difficult to understand how he could defend it. The point I have been trying to make only goes to show what a mess this Bill, unless it is amended, can get us into. My Amendment provides an opportunity to avoid all the heart-searching, all the bother of monitoring, all the dissatisfaction on the part of the Association of Education Committees and the Association of Municipal Corporations, as well as a great many individual authorities. In fact it provides an opportunity to avoid all the risks.
I have been impressed with the fact that concern about the effects of this Bill, unless it is amended, exists in all parts of this House. It is greatly to the credit of the noble Lords on all sides that they have voiced that concern. I believe that this House is at its best when it reflects, as I believe it has on this measure, the conscience of the nation, when people of all Parties and of none join together to say to a Government,"You ought not to take this action without further thought. We will not prevent your doing it, but we want you to think again ". I have been impressed with the expressions of sympathy from the Government Front Bench on many proposals put forward from all parts of the House. I have been impressed at the number of Members of your Lordships' House who have made constructive suggestions. I am, at the

1169
same time, deeply impressed by the adamant, inflexible determination of the Government to get the Bill through this House unamended. I am impressed by the utterly unresponsive attitude of the Government to so many appeals that have been made to it, even from Members sitting on the Government side. Sympathy is not enough. If children between the ages of seven and eleven are to have a firm guarantee of a third of a pint of milk a day, then your Lordships would do well to support the Amendment that I have submitted.
My Lords, this Bill may be a small one; the amount of money involved in terms of national expenditure is not large; but as surely as it is a small Bill it is one which can have serious effects. It is a Bill which, in its present form, is not wanted. If the Government continue to be unresponsive it is the kind of Bill that helps to bring Governments down. This Amendment is submitted in the belief that it will benefit children. It might, in the long run, even benefit the Government, if they accept it. I beg to move.
3.29 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, we have had nearly two full debates on this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, this is not the time to repeat the arguments in full. I pointed out from these Benches on Second Reading that we are in this muddle through the peculiar and appalling arithmetic whereby we try to balance school milk for children against the building of primary schools. School milk for children, if it is to be weighed in the balance, should be weighed against other family provision; school buildings should be weighed against other educational provision; and if it comes to the moment when you must weigh one against the other, then you weigh the whole global sum for family provision against the whole global sum for education. But this kind of weighing of two disparate effects makes no sense logically, in accountancy, in education or in social service.
However, I want to take this opportunity to pick up an echo of the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, to utter a warning to this Government. The great design of their economic plans is still in the balance.
1170
Everyone in this Chamber hopes that in so far as those plans mean prosperity for this country, they are successful. But the Government should rid themselves of the belief that this success depends on charging children for entrance to museums; on dismantling the Consumer Council; on failing to finance the National Film Finance Corporation; on taking away school milk from small children. These are not genuine economies, and, what is more, I am afraid I do not think that they are meant to be. They are meant to be psychological signs that we should stiffen our shoulders, pull in our belts and put our shoulders to the wheel. They are having a psychological effect, but I think they are having a far different psychological effect from that which the Government themselves hoped, and one with which they themselves cannot be pleased.
Noble Lords opposite have at various stages shown their very real distress and concern with what is being done in this Bill. I hope that they will help us to-day to stop this unnecessary and quite tragic Bill. As for me, I shall have no hesitation whatsoever in advising my noble friends to go into the Lobby to support this Amendment.
3.32 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this Bill is concerned with priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in moving the Amendment showed no sign of recognition of this fact, although it had been repeated on several occasions during the previous stages of the Bill. It does the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, credit that he fully recognised that, although he said that these priorities belonged, as it were, to different categories and could not be matched one against the other. However, in all questions of expenditure there is a single common factor and that is the money involved. Although I respect the view he expressed, he must also respect what I have just said.
The question is whether it is better to spend £9 million a year on continuing the supply of one-third of a pint of milk free to all children in primary schools between the ages of seven and eleven or very considerably to speed up the replacement of out-of-date Victorian schools. The Government take the latter view. My noble friend Lord Belstead on

1171
the Committee stage pointed out that the effect of this Bill would be that these old, out of-date Victorian schools, instead of taking twenty years to replace as would have been the case under the programme of the former Government, will now all be replaced within six or seven years. That unquestionably is a substantial gain to primary education—a substantial gain which we should all support. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, or some of his noble friends who asked at earlier stages of the Bill:"Why cannot we have both?" Socialism was said, I think by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, to be a matter of priorities. It is either a matter of priorities or it is a matter of assuming that there is a bottomless purse; and I think that Lord Garnsworthy, with his local government experience, would not accept the latter view.
The fact is that if we want things we must find the money for them. The Government which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, supported were not prepared, or felt themselves not able, to find money to replace the Victorian schools in a period of less than twenty years. This Government believe that it is urgent to replace those schools, more urgent than to continue the supply of free milk to school children. If this was going to worsen the poverty of any family I should be opposed to it. In fact, the third of a pint of milk five times a week for a child will cost, I think I am right in saying, 8½p a week. Under the present Government's legislation, all those families with low incomes will be entitled to family income supplement, which will grant them as of right up to £4 extra per week. Moreover, from September onwards those families where the breadwinner has the deep misfortune to be unemployed will all be receiving, if they have children, something like £2 a week more in unemployment benefit. So there is no possibility of the passing of this Bill worsening the poverty of any family.
The only people it could harm, so far as I can see, are those families where the parents, although they could afford to feed their children properly, are not doing so. That is a tragic situation—I repeat, a tragic situation—but I very much doubt whether that is a situation, whether in the case of food, clothing, or anything else, in which it is right for Parliament to try
1172
to remedy it by handing out free supplies to everybody. There must be a better way of doing it than that. My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has made out any better case for this Amendment than he made for the comparable Amendment on the Committee stage. I respect what he is trying to do, and we all are determined to see that children whose parents are in financial difficulties shall not suffer, but they certainly will not suffer as a result of this Bill.
3.37 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I venture to intervene for just one moment, although I spoke on the Committee stage, in support of this Amendment. With all respect, I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he says that this is a question of priorities. I do not see why the supply of milk to children under the age of eleven in schools should be pitted against the rebuilding, reconstruction and renewal of primary schools in this country. I do not see that they have anything to do with each other. When the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, says:"Do we want both?" my answer is:"Yes, we do ", and we should make sacrifices in some other direction in order to obtain both the school rebuilding programme and the free milk in schools.
I happen to believe that the extraordinarily good health of the children of this country to-day is to a large extent based upon the milk schemes we have had. The nutritional standard is extraordinarily high. We cannot judge how much lower it is going to fall, but at least it is essential in the opinion of every well-informed doctor or medical officer in this country that children should have an adequate supply of milk in the critical period between the ages of seven and eleven. I reminded your Lordships the other day that I had the privilege of introducing in the other place, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in the year 1940—in the summer of 1940 when we were facing invasion—the original National Milk Scheme under the direction of the late Lord Woolton. It has been the basis of the whole of our milk arrangements since then and has stood the test magnificently. That was the foundation of the scheme of milk in schools. It was originally arranged for

1173
all children and nursing mothers to get milk at the price of 2d. a pint—this was in 1940—and, where poverty could be established, free. That was the basis and we have built steadily on this basis, and I believe that the health of the children of this country to-day largely depends on the milk scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised a very important point when he said:"Can we depend in all cases upon the parents?"I suggest that in a very large number of cases we cannot. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that he did not think the remedy was for the State to step in and supply the necessary milk. There I differ from him: I think it is. We can have no guarantee that a very large number of parents, even if they are better off under the new unemployment regulations or what-have-you, will give to their children the milk that they require at this critical age. It is the duty and the business of the State—and it has been proved by our experience over the last twenty years—to supply the milk.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he has been criticising the views that I expressed. I would ask him whether he does not perceive that there is an immeasurable difference between the general health of school children to-day and the general health of school children when Lord Woolton became Minister of Food in 1940.
LORD BOOTH BY: My Lords, of course I do, and the reason lies in the measures which Lord Woolton laid down. That is the reason why there has been this enormous improvement in the health of the children. The noble Lord has given the very reason: that Lord Woolton laid down the foundations of a national milk scheme for this country upon which we have built faithfully and well, and I must confess that I do not like to see those foundations dismantled. I believe that the health of the children of this country is largely dependent upon the arrangements we made in 1940 under very different conditions, and the satisfactory results we have achieved are because of those measures. I am very sad to see those measures being encroached upon, if not dismantled. I beg the Government, before they go on with what I cannot help
1174
feeling is a paltry and a petty Bill which will not redound to their credit in the country and will not go down well anywhere, to reconsider this particular point before it is too late.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has his priorities wrong. Surely the priority is school milk and the health of children from the ages of seven to eleven; and the rebuilding of the schools does not matter. Give the children milk. I know that most likely the Government's reply will be that the school mistresses, seeing a child that they think is insufficiently fed, should give notice to the medical officer. I believe that in the Committee stage it was said that the medical officer had time to see each child only once a year. Is it right that the medical officer's work should he done by the teachers? I know the teachers are there and they see the child every day, but give the children the milk and it will not mean any extra work for the teachers. I support the Amendment wholeheartedly.

ROLLS-ROYCE RB.211 ENGINE AND TRISTAR PROJECT
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if, in reply to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace. The Statement is as follows:
" In my Statement to the House on May 10 about the RB.211 (Hansard cols. 32–3) I reported that the U.S. Administration were seeking authority from the U.S. Congress to guarantee up to 250 million dollars of additional credits for Lockheed. The House will recall that, because of the heavy commitment which we were prepared to undertake on the engine, we wished to be satisfied that the aircraft project itself could be completed. The United States Congress has passed legislation which would permit the granting of U.S. Government guarantees on further loans to Lockheed. I am awaiting notification from the U.S. Administration that it is prepared to give

1175
guarantees for the benefit of Lockheed in an amount of up to 250 million dollars, which amount the U.S. Administration considers sufficient to carry out the TriStar project. I am also awaiting from Lockheed confirmation of the orders for the aircraft from existing airline customers.
" Provided the notification is received as expected from the U.S. Administration and from Lockheed, I am happy to say that the RB.211 programme will proceed and that some 30,000 or more workers at Rolls-Royce and in the company's supplier firms can now expect to continue work on this major engine programme. This has been a major consideration in our deliberations on the subject, and I hope this will relieve some of the anxieties of those involved whether as employees, Rolls-Royce suppliers or trade creditors.
" Many of those who have in the last few months suffered serious anxiety have at the same time had to exert very great efforts to keep alive the prospect of a solution. I wish to record my appreciation of those efforts.
" Rolls-Royce will still have work to do in developing the engines for the TriStar. But we shall all be set on a course aimed at completing the project. We hope that the aircraft will enter into service with many world airlines who will recognise its merits, and the House will, I am sure, wish the project every success."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, and I am sure that I shall be speaking for noble Lords in all parts of the House when I say that we are intensely relieved that this one element of uncertainty surrounding the remarkable engine, the RB.211, will now, as a result of Congressional action, be removed, and that the possibilities of continued employment are greatly improved. I agree, too, that we all hope that as these engines get into service in the American aircraft much of the damage which has been caused in the American market by the initial impetuous action on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be remedied. I think
1176
it is fair and proper to add that this opportunity to recover lost ground was made possible by the personal efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lastly, may I ask the noble Lord how much money has been put into the Rolls-Royce company by Her Majesty's Government since the Receiver took over, to keep the RB.211 programme going; and on what terms exactly that money was advanced?
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, from these Benches we too should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement and to express our relief at what has taken place. I would also echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said about the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I should like to draw attention particularly to the final paragraph of the Statement and to ask whether the Minister would not agree that the time has come when Rolls-Royce and the Government and B.E.A. should be asked to get together to evaluate the whole project in the light of the national interest?
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on the Back Benches, express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the very great work he has done in bringing this project to a successful conclusion? We know how hard he has worked for it, and it is important to this country that we should have the great prestige of Rolls-Royce, who have achieved a magnificent job by introducing this wonderful engine.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which has been given to this Statement. We all share the relief that it now seems possible to go on with this project, and I join in the good wishes for its success. I would also thank noble Lords for the appreciation they have shown of the efforts made by my noble friend the Minister of Defence. I am sure we all join in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked how much money had been put into the development of the RB.211 engine since the Receiver was put in on February 4. I am informed that some £30 million has been put in, in accordance with interim agreements made between the

1177
Government, and the Receiver and Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, and in the normal way this amount would be recovered out of the proceeds from sales. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, who asked for an evaluation, I can tell him that a general review is being made. I am not quite certain what he meant by an"evaluation ". B.E.A. will be free to do this for themselves, and it is not intended in any way to fetter B.E.A.'s choice of a successor aircraft.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I now return to what we were discussing before the Statement was made? It is difficult on an Amendment of this kind in such a Bill not to make a Second Reading speech. I shall avoid it so far as I can, and I will not speak for more than two minutes. I am really concerned about what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said with regard to priorities. This is something on which I agree with one of my noble friends: this is a real priority. If I may say so, without indulging too much in"sob stuff ", my mind goes back to my time as a constituency Member of Parliament with an industrial constituency in Lancashire. I go back to 1945, when I was first elected for that constituency. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had done in 1940, and what had been done in 1944 by reason of the Education Act, in that constituency malnutrition was rife. I recall the kids in the poorer streets of the City of Salford; I remember their malnutrition and their rickets. I believe that the fact that they were able to have free milk in their schools has established to-day an altogether different range and breed of children; those children have benefited by the free milk that they were given in those years.
If that milk is taken away from many families to-day—and I agree some parents are not too careful about seeing that their children get the right foods—I am fearful of a deterioration in the health of the children, particularly in industrial towns like Salford. It is not my constituency any more, but I am still concerned about it. I know, for example, that it has the
1178
highest bronchitis incidence in the country to-day. With all these conditions prevailing, I want to see the children of such towns enjoying to the full what this country can give them. I believe that free milk in the schools, at least up to secondary school age, would be a tremendous asset to to-day's children.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment, to say a word or two about the question of priorities. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that you cannot really compare the building of new schools with the provision of free milk. But supposing you do: you are saying to these children who are going to be deprived of their milk,"You cannot have your milk because we are building new schools ". We are not building them for the benefit of these children; these particular children will get neither milk nor new schools. It is going to take a good many years, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may say, before the country is provided with the new schools we need. In the meantime, generations of children will be without their free milk and also without the new schools.
On the question of priority itself, I say quite frankly that I would much rather that children are provided with milk than with new schools. They are both desirable and they are both essential, but to set one off against the other seems to me a quite irrelevant comparison. After all, the health of the children and their ability to take advantage of the education we provide is at stake. I hope the Government will think again about this Amendment.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed to break in for a moment, not to impose anything I want to say on your Lordships, but because there are two or three matters of fact which I should put before your Lordships which at the moment are possibly not entirely taken by the House. It is, I think, the duty of the Government to reply to this debate on the importance of this measure, because it is quite clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that this Amendment and the Amendments with which it is grouped would completely change the objectives of the Bill. On October 27 last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introducing the White Paper, New

1179
Policies for Public Spending, said that it set out to tackle ever-rising Government expenditure which for each one of us could only lead down a one way path of ever higher taxation. I think it is fair to say that the White Paper also determined to spend more on priorities which demand attention, and at the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear the Government's duty to see that substantial help goes as of right to anyone who needs it. This Bill contributes £9 million to the totality of the Government savings; it forms, however, a small, but, I submit, necessary item in the planned reductions in public spending which, so far as I know, are unparalleled, at any rate since the war, and which I know were only achieved after the most careful scrutiny possible.
Many of your Lordships have said that you cannot set one item of expenditure off against another, and I listened with the closest attention to my noble friend Lord Brooke as he, if I may say so with respect, quite rightly made the point that this is part of a Government exercise to do things which I have just again tried to outline to your Lordships. But within that Government exercise there are various items. This Bill is one. If I may say so with the greatest respect, certain of your Lordships have benefited, or if I may put it this way, organisations with which your Lordships, entirely in voluntary capacities and out of the kindness of your hearts and your public duty, are associated with, have benefited from this exercise; some of your Lordships in that position have, on the Division on the first Amendment in the Committee stage, seen fit to divide against this.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I wonder whether I may—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would explain what he is talking about.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the sort of thing I am referring to, which is part of the whole exercise, is that the Government have managed to find more money, for instance, for schools; and when £4 million was found a few months ago for primary schools my right honourable friend did her very best to devote
1180
more of that money to aided schools. I am simply asking, not only right reverend Prelates but others of your Lordships in this House, to look at this in its totality; not to accept the good parts out of the Government strategy and yet always to pick out the bad parts and divide against them.
The decision to introduce the provision of free milk for children up to the end of the summer term following their seventh birthday was also taken as part of the totality of the strategy after careful consideration, and we knew that when the previous Government had withdrawn secondary school milk the Minister at that time, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, on February 26, 1968, in the House of Commons (cols. 1098/9) had said this—and I only repeat this because of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy:
" Now I should like to deal with the question of the nutritional value of milk in secondary schools. We sought advice about it, of course. This is not something which we just settled without thought. Advice was sought by the permanent head of my Department from my Chief Medical Officer, who consulted the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Broadly speaking, the essence of the report was that present evidence does not allow us to say whether the abolition of free school milk would affect health. Present evidence does not allow a conclusion to be drawn."
And then the right honourable gentleman added these words:
" That advice referred to milk in all schools, but we did not rely on that alone since it referred to all schools."
Our advice one year ago was exactly the same as that advice which I have now recalled to your Lordships' attention.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: It was damned bad advice.
LORD BELSTEAD: It is, therefore, a fact that neither the last Government nor this Government have received advice from the Medical Committee, which is there to give such advice, that the withdrawal of milk would be harmful to secondary or primary pupils. Some of your Lordships feel that the advice is misconceived. The Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy is comprised of people who are not only well known in their fields but who are independent nutritionists. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that this Committee can be relied on, because it

1181
is independent, not to hesitate to give advice when it finds the need to do so.
For their part, the Government are demonstrating their concern for the health of children by the network of checks (to which I referred in detail in Committee) in a variety of areas; with a special national food survey scrutinising nutrition in the home. We are not waiting to see the effects of these checks, as has been suggested by some of your Lordships, but already surveys are in action in Kent and Birmingham. The Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy, coupled with its advice the setting up of a huge nation-wide survey (which is something entirely new), taking in various aspects of child health, and aiming to ensure that deficiencies in nutrition, for whatever reason, will be discovered while they are still mild and reversible.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has finished the point lie was making about 1968. The House will know that we pursued and dealt with this point in Committee, and the noble Lord will be well aware of the fact that the version he has given is not accepted, and it was not accepted in the other place in Committee. He will be well aware of what Mr. Edward Short had to say; he will be well aware of what Miss Joan Lestor had to say; he will be well aware of the fact that in Committee I stated what I felt about it. I am not sure that I can remember the number of the column, but I think it was something like col. 104 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not withdraw one word of what I have said on this matter. I want to make it quite clear that I accept fully what people said in the other place from our side, that they were satisfied that it was safe to withdraw milk from secondary schools. I regret the decision. I have said a number of times that I hope that my side has learned the lesson, and I hope that it will never make the mistake again of giving a hostage to fortune in the way it did by cutting milk to secondary school children.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think I am perfectly in order. They had advice that it would be unsafe to withdraw milk from primary schools.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, quite simply, the reply to the noble Lord is that the honourable lady, Miss Lestor, was not a Member of the Government at that time; the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was not a Member of the Government at that time. The right honourable gentleman, Mr. Edward Short, did query this decision, and he was offered the normal courtesies of seeing the papers in the Cabinet Office. Unless the noble Lord is telling me I should be aware, I am not aware that the right honourable gentleman has availed himself of that facility.
This Amendment seeks to draw a dividing line. In essence, however, the Bill is doing the same thing, because it retains the right to free milk for pupils up to the age of twelve on medical grounds. This, I put to your Lordships, is an important provision which your Lordships have not altered in Committee, just as the new power to sell milk is a provision which remains unchanged in the Bill. There is nothing between us on the desirability of milk as a food, although your Lordships will see that advice cannot be given as to exactly when it is essential and exactly when it is not. I hope your Lordships will accept those words which I uttered before the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, spoke.
What we on this side of the House believe is that, rather than give a specific milk subsidy for all children over the age of seven and a half years old, children who can pay will go on drinking milk, and next term a wide range of parents will be in a far stronger position through substantial increases in rights to security benefits—rights which I will not itemise because my noble friend Lord Brooke did so about a quarter of an hour ago. I would ask my noble friends this question: Do you prefer an indiscriminate subsidy to those who need and to those who do not, putting entirely in jeopardy the general strategy of the Government of last October. Or a safety age limit, with a medical safeguard, a power of sale, and an ability to purchase through improved social security rights? I ask noble Lords opposite: where is the point of principle which causes the introduction of what, in fact, is a wrecking Amendment on Third Reading after this question has been exhaustively debated, not only through another place but in this

1183
House, in Committee, on a very similar Amendment? This is technically a completely defective Amendment in that it will exclude some children at nearly fourteen and others at the age of nine, for reasons which have remained totally unexplained in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in introducing this Amendment. It is also contrary to the policy of noble Lords opposite when in Government, in reintroducing milk for secondary schools.
I ask your Lordships to please look at Hansard for February 26, 1968. At col. 1098 the then Minister referred to the withdrawal of secondary school milk as a"shift in resources ". As reported in the House of Commons Hansard for November 4, 1968, the then Minister described the withdrawal of free meals from fourth and subsequent children of all ages as,"resources which could be more wisely applied." In Hansard of November 17, 1968, the same Minister justified a rise in school meal prices by expenditure needed in other areas of the education service. If words have a meaning, those statements are identical with the Government's intention today.
If your Lordships had the opportunity to listen to local authorities, to listen to teachers and parents asking for real improvement in the old schools of this country, I assure you you would not hesitate; you would choose to implement a general national policy which includes the greatest campaign to bring our old schools up to date which this country has ever seen. It is a campaign remarkable for the four-year span of money promised, which my right honourable friend has already been able to announce. Even though part of that policy includes the restriction of a specific subsidy on milk, provided that the Government safeguards any risk to health, you would choose this, I suggest, provided that the Government make supplies available, and that the Government give real financial help where it is needed. I am asking your Lordships this afternoon to recognise the small but fundamental position that this Bill occupies in the Government plans for the future; to acknowledge the genuine safeguards which accompany it, and to agree now to the passage of the Bill.
4.8 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him one question. I gathered at one point in his speech that the free supply of milk was no longer regarded as essential, either in secondary or in primary schools. Surely he cannot have meant that to apply to primary schools as well as secondary schools, otherwise why have the supply of milk up to the age of seven?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord's ears have not deceived him; but his conclusion is totally wrong.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for intervening because I know that the noble Lord is very capable and very fair, but I think the noble Lord will live to rue some of his remarks today. I am not concerned a tinker's cuss with what any other Government did. If they did what is alleged (and I was in on some of it) it was wrong. I am concerned with what we have to do to-day. No Government can justify their actions by this old fashioned method of saying, "This is what a Liberal Government did" or,"what a Labour Government did ". In the name of Heaven, what is happening to our civilisation? All we seem to be concerned with are statistics and things. I am concerned with the dignity of human beings. I have said before that if you withhold milk from children when they are young, you cannot make it up to them by stuffing them with cream when they are teenagers, or men and women. It is too late.
I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He has a first-class logical brain and he knows in his heart that you cannot compare these priorities of buildings and children. As somebody who has practised in every avenue of teaching, from the old-fashioned elementary school to adult extramural university classes, I know what a good teacher can do in any kind of building if he has the ability and if the children have the health to take it. That does not mean that we do not want buildings, but the Government should not say that £9 million is going to be put into bricks and mortar when the children of to-day are being neglected. I am proud of what the Conservative and Labour Governments did, and I am also

1185
proud of what Lord Boyd-Orr did in the field of nutrition. I am not concerned with the results of so-called nutritional experts, because they contradict each other from time to time, as do economists, to suit the current movements. I beg both sides of the House to-day to send this Bill back to another place, so that it can be looked at. We are supposed to be going into the Common Market and we shall be going in as one of the countries with the worst social services for its children.
What is the matter with this country? Why is it trying to save £9 million? I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but I will tell this House where to find a hundred times more than that if the Government are worried. They gave out £100 million in tax in their last Budget. If they want to get this money hack, why not put a quarter per cent. speculation tax on the rising prices of houses and land, and put that money into school milk? Incidentally, that would also help our hill farmers to stand up to the impact of the Common Market when we enter it. I ask the Government to think of human beings, rather than of the arid figure of £9 million on a balance sheet.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, what noble Lords opposite are really doing is libelling every parent in this country. What they are saying is that no parent in this country is prepared to spend under two shillings a week—the price of eight cigarettes—to provide milk for his children between seven and eleven years of age. My noble friend Lord Belstead has pointed out that poor families are adequately safeguarded, but several noble Lords opposite have harked back to 1944. We are not in 1944. The average income of people in this country has now trebled, including that of unemployed people. This is the most nonsensical debate that I have ever heard. It is a complete storm in a teacup. It is completely emotional and it is completely impractical.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords—
4.13 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I have already risen six times. I am
1186
sorry that three of us cannot speak at the same time, because a chorus of that kind might influence the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite. But the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, should read what his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone said a few years ago. He said that one of the main reasons for the remarkable improvement in children's health in recent years has been the access of children to reasonable supplies of fresh liquid milk. He was referring to the wholesale distribution of school milk to practically every child in the country. I listened hopefully to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he gave his interim reply to this debate, and I was deeply disappointed. I came to the conclusion that he really is beyond redemption. It is quite clear to me that he has never been a mother. When he spoke of medical authority, he failed to differentiate between the child of eleven, who has some good bones and muscles in his body, and the child of seven, whose bones and muscles are going through a very important growing stage.
Then the noble Lord said that the opinion of the local authorities should be taken into account. Let us take into account the opinions of two of the most important local authority organisations in the country. The first is the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have said that they want the right to give these children the milk. The second is the Association of Education Committees, and they, too, have said that they want the right to give these children the milk. The noble Lord may on occasions quote the local authorities when it suits his book to do so, and on the simple, straightforward question that is now before us of whether children of seven to eleven should have milk, he should also quote what the authorities say. I have not been at all influenced by all the quibbles that we have had from the noble Lord. They were quibbles. The straight issue is: are we going to give milk to children of seven to eleven or are we going to take it away from them?
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that this is a question of priorities, as of course it is. Let us look at a few of those priorities. Only a few weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had saved £29 million on school meals, and we

1187
now hear that the Government are saving £9 million on school milk. The total of that is £38 million, which is precisely the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put into the pockets of the surtax payers by his recent Budgets. The Chancellor has been openly boasting on the wireless and in the Press that he has reduced taxation by £1,000 million. We are not asking for £1,000 million, nor for £900 million. We are asking for £9 million, which is the cost of giving these children the milk to which they are really entitled—that is, if we take an adult view of our responsibilities as citizens. Not only did the Chancellor say that he was giving away £1,000 million. A week or two ago he went even further and reduced the purchase tax on mink coats, on expensive jewellery and on other luxuries of that kind. Goodness gracious! my Lords, let us, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, get our priorities right. And if we get our priorities right, should we not say that little schoolchildren come before the ladies in Park Lane, with their mink coats and their expensive jewellery? I do not want to carry on this debate very much longer.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND: It is uncomfortable for noble Lords opposite. We have had one assurance from the noble Lord that some monitoring will take place to see whether or not the children are suffering. That is right. But have the medical evidence before you make a cut in the milk. Do not cut the milk and then see whether some of the youngsters suffer.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will want to be fair. That is precisely contrary to what I said.
LORD LEATHERLAND: All right, my Lords. The noble Lord is setting up a monitoring system.
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. It is being set up by an independent body.
LORD LEATHERLAND: There is another quibble, my Lords. A monitoring system is being set up to examine the children and ascertain whether or not they suffer as a result of this cut in the school milk. That is correct, I
1188
believe. The Government are going to cut off the milk, see whether the kiddies get rickets, and then consider whether the milk should be restored. Why not have the full scientific and medical evidence before you make the cuts? Then, if you get conclusive evidence to show that these children will not suffer by having the milk taken away from them, it might be reasonable to come forward with such an economy as is suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, paraded this cut as part of the Government's economy measures. It may from one point of view be an economy to save £9 million while you are giving away £1,000 million to more comfortable circles, but is it really an economy to take those bright, bouncing boys and girls in the schools to-day and condemn them to the kind of life that their forebears suffered thirty and forty years ago? Because that is what is going to happen. I do plead with the Government (although, as I said, the noble Lord seems to be beyond redemption) to think twice on this matter, in which case they will earn the gratitude of millions of parents in this country.
Of course, I really ought not to be speaking like this. The electors in June last year voted for all this. They knew what they were voting for when they voted a Tory Government into office. They knew there would be all this meanness, all this increased unemployment, all these increases in food prices and these higher rates, rents and fares. They knew it but of course they voted for it, and in a democracy I suppose they ought to have known what was coming to them. But then we, in this House, have the privilege of not being Parliamentary voters, so I think that factor alone leaves us free to speak. If I had my way I would speak from now until midnight, but I understand that a number of your Lordships want to speak, so I will sit down.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I was one of those who abstained on both votes we have had on this matter so far, because I think the Bill has nothing to do with money but rather with education, and that if education is still to be free so should the milk be free. Many children do not like drinking milk. Many children above the age

1189
of 9 have wasted milk, and this is a point in favour of the Government's scheme. That I know to be true. But it is not the poor children who are going to be affected by this Bill: it is in fact the moderately well-to-do and the richer. They will spend their money on the more exotic orange and fizzy lemonades, which is no good, and they will not be subject to the discipline of free milk. That is why I regret that it is going. If noble Lords opposite had put down an Amendment raising the age to nine—in other words, making it from nine to eleven—I should have been bound to support it, but I feel that the other House having taken their decision and this House its decision, then at this stage, reluctantly and hating this as I do, I shall have to vote against the Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I have heard all this for forty years. I just want to go on record with one sentence. I would rather the parents and the people had the money than that we gave out free issues of this and free issues of that in every direction. I think this is due to our people now. They are educated, sophisticated, wise and sensible, and know how to spend their money. But those who are poor should have more, and those who are not so poor should have less. I think that is a sensible arrangement, and this is part of a good, sensible arrangement. I do not believe for one moment that children are going to go without milk because they will go in for"pop ". If they do, then their parents should teach them better; and so should the teacher.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher I should like to put in just a word, if I may, having observed this debate raging to some extent on what might be regarded as Party lines. I should just like to recall to your Lordships what seems to me the basic point that is at issue in this Amendment. In 1943, before the war was over but looking forward to the post-war Five-Year Plan, the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, said:
" There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies".
That was in a broadcast address; and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he says that of course a Government must have priorities.
1190
It is not for me to say what the then Prime Minister would have given as a priority, although he used that rather round phrase,"There is no finer investment for any community ". He was also speaking of babies, but I think he was really thinking of the food policy of his right honourable friend Lord Woolton, which had revolutionised the kind of diet that children had then and have had ever since, only better. I really think that now to take away something which has been proved of such value, even though it is the Government's bounden duty to fulfil their Election pledges, and although they made quite plain that they wanted to concentrate the help where it was most needed, is wrong.
I myself think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was right when he said that there were a great many children whose parents could afford this milk but who will not in fact get it if this Bill is not amended. I am prepared to bet the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a bottle of port to a one-third pint bottle of milk that, in the event, five years from now, if this Bill is not amended, there will be a dramatic falling off in the amount of milk drunk at schools. It was said in Committee that it would be better for the parents and that the parents would probably buy the milk and get the children to drink the milk at home, instead of sending them off to school with some money. With respect, a great many children do not particularly like milk and will not drink it at home; but they will drink it in the company of their friends at school.
I plead with the Government, even at this late hour, to consider whether they could possibly meet those of us who very nearly divided the House in favour of the previous Amendment on the Committee stage. I plead with the Government to think once more before they take this step, which will mean that children, who I am sure we all agree need this milk, will not have it. I am not speaking now of those on the edge of malnutrition and who will be revealed by the monitoring system, nor even of those who are on the margin of poverty. I am taking the realistic view that if we pass this Bill in its present form a large number of children between the ages of seven and eleven who ought to have, and

1191
who would be the better for having, one-third of a pint of milk a day will in fact not have it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I say just this? If the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will agree to adjourn this debate in order to give consideration to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, I will do my best from this side to persuade my colleagues not to speak any further. We would be happy indeed to accept an adjournment so that the Government could give further consideration to the points which have been raised.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I make two points, and no more? The first is on Lord Belstead's statement. He has made out the Government's case as always going one better than something which the Labour Government did, something which many people in the Labour Party did not even wish or agree to. The age at which the issue of milk is stopped is very important. It is much more important to stop it at eleven, if you are going to stop it, than at seven. That is one point. The other point I wish to make arises out of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he said that, because of the family income supplement, this measure will not make the people on the poverty line poorer. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, reads his newspapers, but every day I read that people are not taking up the family income supplement. Therefore, they are left the poorer if their children are denied their one-third of a pint of milk a day.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder if, at the end of this considerable discussion, I may be allowed to add my views as a school manager of two very old primary schools. I heartily support what my noble friend Lord Brooke said in regard to the package approach. My two very old primary schools badly need rebuilding, in my view, and, of course, there are a vast number of others, scattered all over the country, of which the same can be said. But I should like to return to the practicalities of this whole milk problem. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has suggested, as indeed have many other speakers, that milk is a beneficial institution in schools. I query, first of all, the basic theme that the
1192
nutritional value of milk is indispensable. I am very interested in nutrition generally, though I am not an expert. Secondly, I should like to draw attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Monckton in regard to wastage. All school managers who are concerned with the direct management of affairs within schools are only too well aware of the difficulties that teachers have in persuading children to swallow the milk. This is a universal problem and it occurs specially in winter terms. During the summer terms it is easier. I suggest that there are practical considerations to be looked at. I feel that the nutritional side is an open question, and therefore I would support my noble friend Lord Brooke in viewing this as a matter of priorities.
4.31 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not know whether there is likely to be any response from the Government to the idea of adjourning this debate so that the Government may think again. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, indicates that there will be none. May I make it quite clear that the only way to achieve any change at all is to give the Government an opportunity to think about the matter again by the House accepting this Amendment? That will then give another place an opportunity to go into the matter in considerable detail and to consider the criticisms on many points that have been raised in this House from all parts. I remember the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton—and no answer was given to Lord Milverton at any time during the Committee stage. I recall the criticisms made by his noble friend Lord Auckland, and the noble Lord opposite will recall that in Committee he had but one speaker from his side who said anything that could suggest support for the Bill.
I want to make it quite clear that I recognise that this Amendment will be defective. But if it is carried it will give the Government an opportunity to give to the many points that have been raised here the kind of attention that they failed to give in our Committee. I feel that we have been confronted throughout our debates by a determination to pass this Bill without changing a dot or a comma. No Government should assume that they can bring a measure of this kind to this

1193
House in this way without your Lordships' saying:"Stop! You are not getting away with it! We intend to check any Government who want to ' steamroller ' any Bill through this House." I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, throughout the Committee stage again and again expressed sympathy with the criticisms that were voiced. The Government could at any time themselves have come forward with Amendments to remedy the defects, not of the Amendments but of the Bill.
My Lords, I must be careful; for I thought at one stage that this discussion on the subject of milk was going to put up the temperature of the House. I was grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, came in and lowered the temperature somewhat. May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was right on one point, and that was the question of priorities. It is all a matter of priorities. Is there one noble Lord who would not put the interests of his children first when considering priorities? Is there one noble Lord who would say that other things come before that? The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has made one or two contributions during the stages of this Bill. May I say that I hold him in high regard, but I do not believe that he begins to understand how a great many people live; or that he begins to understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and the point completely ignored by Government spokesmen, in trying to defend this Bill, when they talked about family income supplement. Let them tell us what the take-up is; because they know that at the moment it shows all the signs of being a ghastly failure. And why? Because people are proud in poverty and there will always be a great many people who will not apply for benefits of the kind that the family income supplement offers.
What is the position of the parents who will not spend money on milk? If the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, imagines that this question was asked only by those on this side of the House, I may point out that Lord Brooke referred to that situation as"tragic ". What help can we give the children in these tragic circumstances where the parents will not give the children money for milk, where they prefer to spend it on cigarettes and beer? I venture to suggest that the only way we
1194
can ensure that these children get milk is to ensure the continuance of what is being done at present. The point I think the House needs to take is this: under this Bill it does not matter how poor a family is, poverty itself does not secure free milk. For a child in the age group seven to eleven to get free milk at school, a medical officer must issue a certificate saying that there is a medical need. I think that that point has not really sunk in; but it is one that I think the House should take.
It would be easy to repeat all the arguments that were put forward at the Committee stage. In opening, I tried to avoid too much repetition; but, if I may, I will once again mention the word"priorities ". I do not think that the welfare, the security or the economic progress of this country depends upon depriving children between the ages of seven and eleven of one-third of a pint of milk a day. This country is not in such a desperate situation as that. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows this perfectly well when he talks about it all being part of a national strategy, and claims credit for the fact that £38 million is going to be saved by putting up the price of school meals, and by cutting free milk, in order to build new schools. I want to say that, whatever criticism there may be of a Labour Government regarding education and of what that Government did not do, they were responsible for the largest expenditure—a record expenditure—in the field of education. I think more recognition might be given to that. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Some noble Lords may say"Hear, hear! "; but there will be many people outside this House who will be interested in the number of noble Lords who spoke and in the number who thought it was a subject that ought not to be discussed. I hope very much that this Amendment will be carried and that, when it has been included in the Bill, the further thought will be given to making alterations in the Bill which will make it more thoroughly acceptable and more worth while than it is at the present time.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Amherst, E.

Garner, L.

Raglan, L.

Amulree, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Archibald, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Ardwick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Royle, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hankey, L.

Seear, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, Bs.

Boothby, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bourne, L.

Hoy, L.

Shannon, E.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Jacques, L.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Camoys, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Williamson, L.

Falkland, V.

Pargiter, L.

Willis, L.

Faringdon, L.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Atholl, D.

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Poole, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Reading, M.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hacking, L.

St. Just, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hailes, L.

Salisbury, M.

Blackford, L.

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

Saltoun, L.

Brentford, V.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harcourt, V.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hertford, M.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Carrington, L.

Howe, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Colyton, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Terrington, L.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Thomas, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Devonport, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Masserecne and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dulverton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I should like to say one word on this Motion before the Bill is passed. We have heard

1197
a great deal during the debates on the question of priorities, but we have not heard anything about something in which I was brought up to believe (my father was in another place for 15 years): that timing was one of the great things in politics. I must say that I think the Government's timing of this Bill could not have been worse. They would have had plenty of time to bring in this Bill later on. That would have given the House a chance of discussing it, when we were not tired and strained, as we have been, at the end of this especially long Session.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to say two sentences before the Bill passes, if I may. If the Bill passes, as it will, unamended, a great deal less milk is going to be drunk by a great many more children in this country; and nobody can tell me that this will be a good thing for the future generation.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I also should like to say one word, as I have not spoken during the passage of this Bill. I must confess that I do not like it. I think that it is a bad Bill, and I wish that our Government had not introduced it. But I think that a good many noble Lords who have spoken from the other side are suffering under one delusion—that is, that this Bill is depriving children of milk. It is doing nothing of the kind. It is merely saying that they shall not have it free. Admittedly this will prejudice the supply of milk for children a great deal, because people do not like having to pay for anything, even a 3p stamp. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Belstead could not consider some Amendment on these lines when the Bill goes back to another place: that milk shall be made compulsory up to the age of 11, but that parents shall be charged for it, except in cases where extreme poverty can be proved. That, I think, will solve the situation in both directions.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have one small point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has emphasised time and time again that the authorities are to be empowered under this Bill to sell milk. He also referred during the Committee stage to provisions which will enable the authorities to sell
1198
other refreshments. I hope that when, as is likely, this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and no free milk is on general issue, the appropriate Department will take steps to direct the authorities as to the kind of refreshments and foodstuffs which they should sell, and which will be beneficial to children. I have the feeling that typical tuck shop grub will be the kind of thing that children will buy and that this will have a detrimental effect which I have endeavoured to illustrate, particularly on teeth, which will take from seven to ten years to become noticeable.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I have listened, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has, to what has been said. It is quite clear that many Members of your Lordships' House, while respecting the position the Government have taken up, have grave reservations about the wisdom of introducing this Bill. I think the Government will have to take note of what has been said. As to what they might do towards meeting the criticism, I confess that I do not know, because the Bill will soon be an Act of Parliament. Personally, I much regret that I have been involved in a controversy of this nature with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I should have preferred that we might have been able to find more points of agreement than points of disagreement. I appreciate the unfailing courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has replied to arguments and criticisms, some of which must have been a little hard for him to take. We know him as a man, and we regret that he, due to his position, has been placed in the situation which he has. I hope that on some other occasion we shall find matters on which we can reach more agreement than we have been able to reach on this Bill. I want to make it quite clear that we are conscious of the close attention he pays to what is said. I can only hope that we do not too long have to entertain a Government who are capable of inflicting measures of this kind on little children.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Somers asked whether it would not be possible to alter the Bill at this late stage to include an Amendment on extreme poverty. This was tried in Committee in another place and it

1199
was found to be almost impossible to define"extreme poverty"from the point of view of this Bill. I know it is the point of view of certain noble Lords, who would have liked to see this rather than a health requirement in the Bill, but I would remind my noble friend that the health requirement is firmly there. We believe that it will work, and that with it will go bracketed the maintenance of people's incomes, which will also, to some extent, safeguard the sale of milk—although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has some reservations about that.
The reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is that school meals are of a set nutritional value. If the noble Lord is thinking also of snack meats which can be served under Regulation 5(2), he can rest assured that the School Meals Service, which of course will be overseeing those sort of meals, will also he taking to heart the kind of thoughts that he has on their nutritional value. This is an important point, because the take-up of snack meals to-day is becoming higher and higher.
Last, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I would point out to the House that the Government are taking every care that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy have taken an unprecedented step in connection with this Bill in setting up a special committee on child nutrition, and they are starting, along with the many other checks and balances that there are on nutrition, a special and gigantic survey. I think that answers the questions which have been asked by your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 1 (CATTLE) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
4.56 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approves the proposed alternations to the Code No. 1 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to Cattle, a copy of which was laid before the House on July 2. It would probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if at the same time we discussed the proposed
1200
alterations to the other three Codes: these are for pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys. It would also be right, while introducing these alterations, that I should declare that I have an interest, in so far as I am a farmer, and one of the enterprises in which I am involved is the growing of table poultry.
The rapid advance in techniques of all kinds which has taken place in every sphere of agriculture in the last ten years or so has inevitably had its effects on the methods under which livestock are kept. The increasing necessity for large units, which industry has found essential for its successful operation, has also been found to be equally essential in agriculture, whether the units are the size of holdings, the size of fields, the size of machines or the size of livestock enterprises. And it is as a result of this that there was, and is—and I suggest rightly so—a genuine concern, which I think is felt by everyone, by the Government, your Lordships, farmers and the public in general, that somehow the progress of technological evolution, which is inevitable and in many, ways desirable, and from which we cannot escape, should nevertheless not be allowed to be pursued in respect of animals regardless of the fact that they are living beings.
It was, therefore, in order to meet this new situation, and to try to find a way of balancing, on the one hand, the new methods and techniques which modern science and knowledge has taught us and, on the other hand, the adequate and reasonable conditions in which all fair-minded people would wish to see animals kept, that the Brambell Committee was set up in 1964. This was the first attempt—certainly in this country, and I believe in the whole world—to try to investigate the problem in depth. It was as a direct result of this that the Codes of Practice which are in operation to-day were introduced by the last Government in 1969.
These four Codes which are currently in use were debated in the House on October 14, 1969, on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on behalf of the previous Government. During that debate, it was clear that some noble Lords, although welcoming the Codes in principle, did not consider that they went far enough in some of their recommendations in order to provide adequate

1201
safeguards for the welfare of farm animals. It was as a result of the doubts that were expressed then, and those which were expressed in another place, that after the Codes had been approved, the Government of the day asked the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to re-examine certain Code recommendations; and at the same time, the Government arranged for a survey to be undertaken by the State Veterinary Service, which is now the veterinary arm of the Agricultural Advisory Service, to determine how the Codes were in fact being applied in practice on farms throughout the country.
As is in general the custom, the advice which was given to Ministers by the Advisory Committee and which followed their re-examination of certain Code recommendations was not published, but a report by the Committee which explained the issues and the arguments upon which their advice was given was placed in the Library of your Lordships' House in September, 1970, and it was also published. This report, which sets out very clearly on the one hand the ethical considerations and on the other hand the scientific considerations which influenced the Committee in their re-examination, includes a bibliography and, I might add, is an excellent commentary on the subject of animal welfare. The Government are most grateful to the Advisory Committee for agreeing to the publication of this very valuable material, and I commend it to anyone who wishes to make a detailed and objective study of the subject. At the same time (September, 1970) the Government also placed in the Library of the House a report by the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture on the survey which was undertaken by the State Veterinary Service to find out how the Codes were being operated in practice. This survey involved visits by veterinary staff to more than 4,000 livestock premises throughout Great Britain during the period February to May, 1970. On most of the premises which were visited, stock were being kept under intensive husbandry systems. The survey found that the standard of stockmanship was generally satisfactory and it confirmed that the welfare Codes were based on sound principles.
1202
In general terms, the report leads to the conclusion that the Codes provide safeguards of the right kind and at the right level for the welfare of farm animals and that they are capable of being applied in practice. But the report suggested some areas in which modifications should be made to the Codes. In some cases these were to clarify the intention, and in others to take account of further minor points which arose in the course of the survey. My right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland have therefore not only had the advantages of these two reports but also the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, as well as observations from the British Veterinary Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, together with its Scottish counterpart. It was in the light of all this advice that proposals for change in the Codes were prepared. These proposals were then circulated for comment to 128 interested organisations in England and 41 in Scotland. The final proposals, which are now before the House, were prepared after consideration had been given to a great deal of the comment received from the very wide range of these organisations representing filming, veterinary, scientfic and indeed welfare interests.
I do not doubt that your Lordships will have noted that the proposed alterations are of a relatively minor nature, and there may be some who feel that the substantial amount of time and effort which is represented by the reports and consultations to which I have referred has produced a rather meagre result. I suggest that it would be wrong to take this view. I am sure that it was right to re-examine certain of the recommendations in depth, and that it was right to appraise thoroughly the application of Codes in that field; and I am also sure that it was right, as the Act requires, to give ample opportunity for comment. The purpose of the proposed alterations is to remove ambiguities and difficulties of interpretation and to make small but significant improvements to the scope of the Codes. The papers before the House set out all the proposed alterations and their purpose. As they are in the main self-explanatory, I do not propose to take up time by speaking on each and every

1203
proposed change. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to just two of the proposed alterations which I feel might be regarded as being among the more important and which might serve to illustrate the kind of considerations the Government have given to these proposals and the care taken to frame them in such a manner as to achieve a positive improvement which is capable of practical application.
The two alterations I propose to deal with are those to paragraph 20 of the Code for Cattle and to paragraph 24 of the Code for Domestic Fowl. Paragraph 20 of the Code for Cattle deals with the space allowances for tethered or penned cattle and it is intended, both in its original form and as proposed to be revised, to provide—I quote from the basic requirement as set out in the Preface to the Code:
" adequate freedom of movement and ability to stretch limbs ".
The original wording of the paragraph was found by veterinary staff to pose in practice problems of interpretation, and the proposed alteration is intended to remove those difficulties without departing from the basic principle. Noble Lords will note that the current Code recommends that penned animals should have sufficient room to lie down on their sides and extend their legs in their pens—that is, within the confines of the pens. But it was found that the width of pen which an individual penned calf would need in order to enable this recommendation to be implemented varied with the way in which the animal lay and the angle at which it extended its legs. Both the published reports to which I have referred mentioned this problem. The veterinary report sets out the official interpretation based upon the original recommendation, and the Advisory Committee agree that the official interpretation meets the Committee's original intentions, which were sound and should not be changed. The proposed alteration gives effect to both these views and recommends a pen width of not less than the height of the animal at the shoulder. This will ensure that when an animal lies down with its legs at right angles to its body it will have the same width of the pen as is its height from the floor to its shoulder when it is standing.
1204
The second example relates to paragraph 24 of the Code for Domestic Fowls, which is concerned with the space allowances for poultry. The Government have not proposed any alteration in the allowances recommended, but both in order to change to terms more commonly used by poultry keepers—and they tend to think in terms of stock intensities, rather than of space allowances—and to clarify the intention, we are proposing that these areas should be related to"maximum acceptable densities"and not, as at present, to"space allowances given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor ". This phrase has been seen by some poultry keepers as synonymous with recommended densities, and this was a point which substantially disturbed the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when the Codes were introduced. It may be recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, expressed the view that it might be possible to write this paragraph rather differently in order to make it clearer. This is what has been done. In addition to this basic change, noble Lords will have noticed that the proposed alteration seeks to tidy up the paragraph in general and it now includes a tabular rather than a prose form of presentation.
The Government believe that these alterations will strengthen the recommendations and will also clarify the meaning of the Codes. I know that there may be some noble Lords who would wish to see a drastic reduction in stocking densities, particularly for caged poultry. This aspect of the Code was dealt with in some depth in the two reports made available to the House. The Government consider that neither report justifies a change in the densities recommended. The State Veterinary Service reported no evidence of pain or distress among birds stocked at the Code densities; and the Advisory Committee in their report gave, in their statement of the scientific approach, a well-documented analysis which contained no evidence that stocking density within the range practised by the industry is itself a critical welfare factor. It is worth noting that the veterinary survey found that in the majority of poultry units visited the stocking densities used were in fact below the levels recommended as maxima in the Code.

1205
I hope your Lordships will agree that these proposed alterations are an improvement to the Codes. I am very much aware that there are those who will be disappointed that the proposals do not go further than they do. I respect their point of view and their intense, and indeed sincere, concern for the welfare of animals. I hope that they, in turn, will accept that the Government are equally concerned for the welfare of animals, and that my right honourable friends have tried, as did their predecessors, to discharge carefully their responsibilities in this matter and to balance fairly and justly the advances of science and techniques, together with the modern methods and requirements of animal husbandry which these bring, with the reasonable and appropriate dignity of man in relation to the living stock over which he has control.
My Lords, this is a balance upon which nobody can claim to have achieved the right and only answer; differing shades of opinion on all sides may claim that the balance should be tilted in a different direction. Nor do the Government claim that these Codes are perfect and will remain so. Constantly changing knowledge, and the result of new research, will doubtless cause the Codes to be altered again. But I believe that the Codes, as amended, will, if properly applied, constitute an effective safeguard for the welfare of livestock on farms, and I hope that your Lordships will approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 1 (Cattle) of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.11 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am happy to say a few words about this subject. Perhaps we might go back a short period to find out how the whole matter arose. It was my privilege in another place to pilot through the other place this particular section of the 1968 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which gave birth to these Codes. During that process I was told not to go so far as to make it an uneconomic proposition for those who were engaged in farming. So we had to strike a balance then, of not only being fair to the farmer, but to make
1206
it possible to introduce conditions that would be humane so far as livestock were concerned. That is what we set out to do, and that we ought to remember in any criticisms of these Orders that we may care to make.
We ought to take a little pride in the fact that this is the first and still, I think, is the only country in the world where Codes of this kind exist. It is to our credit that, despite all the difficulties, we took time, and are now taking time, to deal with a subject of this kind. It is true that immediately we go into codes of practice on animal welfare we create, apparently, emotive forces. When I was at the Ministry I had to deal with hundreds of letters about the destruction of seals and their pups in Canada, as if we had the right or some power to put a stop to that. I know that as soon as this sort of subject arises all the attention is directed to the Ministry in our country on many matters over which it has no control.
When the Orders were first introduced in another place (if I may say so, it was not after they were introduced) my right honourable friend Mr. Cledwyn Hughes intimated that he would instruct the State Veterinary Service to report on how the Codes were working. He promised, even at that time, to place a copy of the report in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament so that Members of both Houses could see what was said about the Codes and how they had worked. He also promised to ask the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to look again at the recommendations and, if they could see any improvements that were necessary, to make a report to the Ministers, whoever they might be, so that any recommendations could be taken into account, and the Codes be amended accordingly. My right honourable friend at the time did not delay in issuing instructions, and the job was put in hand immediately. It was as a result of these instructions that these reports were presented, and it falls to the present Government to adopt the recommendations suggested. That is what we are doing this afternoon.
It is always difficult when we come to deal with these Codes to measure how far we ought to go. We have never led the country, or anyone in it, to believe

1207
that we could move so quickly that overnight we could create perfection so far as these matters were concerned. We had before us at that time the Brambell recommendations. There were those who thought that as we did not implement the Brambell recommendations completely we had failed in the job we had set out to do. Your Lordships will agree that in the course of the working of these Codes, over a very short period at least, we have been able to assure ourselves that in the main they have worked reasonably well, not only for those engaged in husbandry, but for the welfare of the animals concerned.
It is not my intention to be critical of the recommendations that have been made, or to criticise them for not going so far as perhaps I should want them to go, because I know that it is always simple to criticise Codes. I see that my noble friend (and I believe I may call him that) Lord Conesford is present, and many a time I have had to listen to him in another place dealing with Codes. I remember on one famous occasion he delivered a speech of some fair length, which contained good humour and good sense, on the Highway Code, and nearly convinced me that it would not work at all. I believe we have made a good start with our codes of practice and I will do nothing to delay the passing of the Order which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has moved.
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that we are going through a period of technological evolution, and what we are trying to do in this and other fields is to see that we maintain certain standards, whatever a technology may try to dictate to us. This is the approach which many people make towards this problem. I was glad that my noble friend showed that we are really concerned about the subject we are talking about to-day, as the Minister did in the other place. That is proper because it reflects the profound anxiety which is felt by many people in all parts of the country about what is happening in this branch of technology, if you like to call it that.
I hope that those in this House who are interested in farming will not to-day
1208
be too sensitive about what is being discussed. We are concerned with a small minority of the trade as it exists; anyone can see that from the extremely interesting report of the State Veterinary Officer. It is not a large number, but we want to increase it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that a Code is probably the right way to handle this, but I should like to test the Minister in this way: is it a minimum Code, or is it regarded as a norm? I hope that he will say that it is a minimum Code.
There is a big difference between this occasion and a former occasion when we discussed this matter. On the last occasion I divided the House, and a great number of Members from different parts of the House came into the Lobby with me. The Minister this time has not only shown his concern in a very real way, but has said without ambiguity that it is his responsibility that these Codes are issued. He is not trying to pass the responsibility on to an advisory board; he is accepting full responsibility. I also want to thank the Minister for the publication of the two reports which we have in front of us, of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the State Veterinary Service.
I cannot say that the Minister has been very brave. As has been said, the results are rather meagre, but I suppose that in due course they will be incorporated in a new edition of the Codes. I must say that he made a curious statement when he said that he prefers science to ethics. This is an extraordinarily interesting subject for a philosophical essay, but it is irrelevant to the subject which we are discussing to-day. If one likes to call it a subjective judgment as compared with objective evidence, then by all means one may do so; or should a dentist next time put a hole in my teeth and not pay enough attention, would it be preferable to call him unethical? I should like to do that, but I have some doubts as to whether it would be the correct adjective to apply to him.
Science cannot measure pain and indeed scientists have not even a norm or a unit of pain. I doubt very much whether they ever will have. There are limits to scientific information on this matter, and with great respect it is highly limited. I see in the report of the Advisory Committee that Professor

1209
Hewer says that protein metabolism is almost a decisive issue as to whether there is stress or pain. If I may say so, I suspect that the protein metabolism of those in the mining industry before the Factory Acts probably altered a great deal, but whether they were considered to have been happy or satisfied I should have thought was highly doubtful. So I do not feel greatly persuaded by the use of this particular terminology.
Moreover, although the Minister chooses what he calls science instead of what I call a subjective judgment, the State Veterinary Service uses no other judgment at all except a subjective judgment. It does not pretend to submit any kind of scientific basis. I am saying, therefore, that I think the Minister's insistence on science is not very well conceived in this matter. I should not like to say it was an excuse for doing very little, but I must confess I am disappointed that more has not been done. I only hope, after hearing the noble Earl's statement, that other codes can be evolved in due course, and I very much hope that they will be.
I liked the State Veterinary Officer's report. It was frank. But I should like to know the position about enforcement. He mentions three prosecutions. I do not know whether that is the sum total, but from some of the pictures he gives I am a little surprised that there have not been more prosecutions. For instance, he said on pages 7 and 8 that in certain cases calves cannot groom themselves. It is perfectly clearly laid down in the Code that calves should be able to groom themselves. Is it not considered an infringement—really a fundamental infringement—of the whole purpose of these Codes if they cannot do so? I say this particularly in regard to Code 1, paragraph 20. Further on he refers to the number of premises in which water and food is withheld for two days—this is in respect of pigs. He says that there is no evidence of pain or distress. I should have thought that that was arguable. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen human beings who have not drunk for twelve or twenty-four hours, but it would be very hard to say that they had not suffered a certain amount of distress. I should have thought it was quite clearly laid down in Code 2, paragraph 16, that this was contrary to the Code. I have therefore to ask this
1210
simple question: Are there enough veterinary officers looking after this position, because these seem to be pretty serious cases, although I accept readily that they are only in a minority?
The other point is the astonishing detail with which it appears necessary to go into this matter. For instance, Code No. 1, paragraph 20, says that a tether must not cause injury to the cattle. Is it really necessary to put this in? Surely this situation is fully covered by the 1911 Act. In Code 3, paragraph 5, it is said that injury such as open wounds and fractures should be treated. Is it really essential to put this in? Is it not part of the general standards which are already being observed?
I should now like to ask one or two questions—I will not keep your Lordships for long. First of all, in regard to pigs, Code 2, why are they not allowed the same proportion of space as cattle in single pens? Cattle are supposed to have a pen as high as their shoulder. May I ask the noble Earl to confirm that that is the top of the shoulder—I think his right honourable friend said that in the other place—and not some arbitrary place on the shoulder? Secondly, in regard to birds, Code No. 3, when it is said that they can stretch their wings without difficulty, does that fairly mean both wings? I understand that certain problems have arisen with regard to the phrase"without difficulty ". This indicates to me that there is some difficulty, and the question is:"How much?" Is there no chance of allowing animals out of their enclosures for one day, or part of a day, to stretch their legs outside the enclosed pens?
I should like to say one other word in general terms about the question of white veal. White veal, I should not have thought by any scientific standards, was a good diet. It is produced by anaemic animals. There is what one might call an ethical choice. I would prefer to call it a subjective choice of the consumer. But is it right that we should continue to encourage people to eat meat which is produced from animals which are not healthy? During my life-time doctors have changed their views a great deal on what is good for dietary and what is not good for dietary. Are we sure that before long doctors may not declare this meat possibly the

1211
basis of some of the diseases whose origins have not been fully traced right up to the present time?
I know that we are probably going to join the European Economic Community and that some of the farming population think that we must not put too heavy a burden on the farmers. First of all, let us be quite clear that the reports indicate that the vast majority of farmers are well above the standards, better than the standards. So it is not very likely that raising the minimum standard is going to impede the agricultural community at all. Secondly, I should like to hope that when we go into the E.E.C., if we do, we carry with us standards which are indeed worth while; that they are going to be something which we can gradually impose, or at least encourage other countries in Europe to adopt.
My Lords, in conclusion I will simply say this. Ought not the terms of the 1911 Act, which are quite strong in paragraph 1, to be brought clearly to the attention of those who engage in this particular industry? After all, no prosecution can lie under these particular Codes. A prosecution, as I understand it, will lie under the 1911 Act. Should farmers not be more aware of just what does lie under that Act? Secondly, the noble Earl has said that the new Codes should be perused. I am sure that the House will welcome them to show a steady willingness to raise the lowest standards that still exist, and not too readily to adjust standards to what is currently practised.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, until I arrived in your Lordships' House this afternoon I was unaware that a general debate would be taking place on these proposed alterations to recommendations for the welfare of animal livestock. I imagined that probably a series of questions would be put to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and this in fact is all I wish to do. I have just a couple of queries which I should like to raise while generally welcoming the amendments proposed.
Following the Brambell Report, I wonder whether something more could be done to put the message over to the general public and to impress upon them
1212
that the vast majority of farmers are not completely inhumane and entirely without feeling. Notwithstanding the fact that an unhealthy or an unhappy animal cannot possibly thrive and consequently must be an uneconomic proposition, I am sure that both farmers and their stockmen have a certain affection for animals; they certainly have an interest in and show great concern for the health and welfare of their animals—animals upon which they depend for their livelihood, and to a certain extent animals upon which the life of every citizen depends.
I believe that the National Farmers' Union suggest that there is a tendency for the new Codes to embrace extensive systems of production. I would agree with them that this is so and it would appear to be unnecessary. Nevertheless, constant watch needs to be kept over the complex systems of modern intensive livestock keeping, and I personally thoroughly welcome the alterations and the proposed amendments to paragraph 20 (I think it is) regarding increasing the size of pens in veal production.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. First, can he tell me how many veterinary field officers are doing animal welfare work and what portion of their time is committed solely to this purpose? Is the Minister satisfied that following the veterinary report the amount of time devoted to this work is sufficient? For these Orders to be effective, there must be an adequate veterinary complement, and I wonder what the average age of the veterinary officers mainly concerned with this work is, how many recruits have taken up employment in the field service, and what have been the losses due to resignations and retirements from the time that the Order became effective, I believe in September, 1968? Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to give some figures.
5.31 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as the House is aware, I do not often intervene on any agricultural matter, for the very good reason that I have no direct experience as a farmer and am ignorant of the technicalities of the subject. But this question of factory farming has concerned me very much indeed, and my

1213
only previous interventions on an agricultural Bill have been on this subject. On April, 30, 1968, my noble friend Lord Selkirk introduced, and I supported, an Amendment which sought to put into the text of this Statute those famous words in paragraph 37 of the Brambell Report:
" An animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs."
My noble friend and I, and many others, thought it desirable that that declaration of rights for animals, if I may so summarise it, should be available on the face of the Statute. That paragraph is referred to in many subsequent paragraphs of the Brambell Committee's Report, and it was their fundamental doctrine. On that occasion we were defeated by 96 votes to 23.
Then we come to the debate on the Codes themselves, on October 14, 1969, to which my noble friend the Minister has already referred. On that occasion the opposition to the Codes was deployed with brilliance and humanity in a most moving speech by Dr. Fleming, then and until lately Lord Bishop of Norwich. Perhaps I might say, in passing, that there is no one whose departure from this House I more regret than that of my friend the former Lord Bishop of Norwich. On that occasion I mentioned some of the moral considerations as I saw them. I thought I was not a sentimentalist; but if I was, I found myself in very good company: the Lord Bishop of Norwich himself, Professor Brambell, my old friend Julian Huxley, Dr. Tinbergen, F.R.S., the great authority from Oxford University, and Professor Thorpe, who has written an appendix to the Brambell Report itself. On that occasion we were defeated in a much closer Division by 67 votes to 38. This House was really concerned, as was another place, in the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has already referred, and I think that it is now quite clear that both Houses of Parliament are acutely concerned, as is the public outside.
Let me say at once, to relieve my noble friend the Minister, that of course we all welcome the improvements in the Codes that are incorporated in these Amendments which he has moved. If I may say so, I particularly welcome the Amendment to meet a rather savage
1214
criticism that I made on a previous occasion, and that was on Code No. 3, dealing with domestic fowls. On that occasion the standards laid down on what I may call"overcrowding "—although that is probably not the right technical term—which might have been right had they been real standards, were made quite absurd by the words that then appeared in the paragraph concerned. It said:
" The following allowances are given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor."
Thus even those minimum standards did not have to be observed to comply with the Codes. If a poultry farmer disregarded those standards, he could still allege that otherwise he was so good that it did not matter. Those ridiculous words have now gone, and we have words that are much more sensible; namely:
" The following figures are given as a guide to the maximum densities acceptable in most circumstances for domestic fowl husbandry in current use."
I am grateful for all the Amendments made, and in particular, perhaps, for that one, which meets a point that I made.
But, my Lords, I do not think that the Codes as they now stand, though improved, are good enough. The reason for this, I think, is that there is complete misunderstanding among Ministers about the nature of our criticisms of the Codes and the principles involved. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I very much welcome the production of the two booklets with which the Government have furnished us. The report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is the one to which I am going to refer a little. It refers to two different approaches, described for convenience, and for convenience only, as the"ethical"and the"scientific ". These are only the most general descriptions, and anybody interested in ethics or in science knows that as a dichotomy of the whole of knowledge it would of course be completely absurd. If my friend Julian Huxley writes, with other experts on animal behaviour, a letter to The Times criticising these Codes and saying what ought to be done, is he writing as an ethical expert, a moralist, or is he writing as a scientist? Of course he is doing both. To cover the field of human knowledge or theory, of course, it would be an impossible dichotomy.

1215
For this I do not in the least blame the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. They state on the very first page of their report that this division is only for convenience, and the two, of course, do not represent the exclusive views of two sets of members. I mention this because a very wrong use has subsequently been made of these terms. Immense harm is done to clarity of thought on the matter if it is assumed, quite wrongly, that there is less scientific support for the ethical approach than there is for the so-called scientific approach. There is not. The ethical approach is backed by a most impressive list of scientists. There is, I am glad to say, a bibliography in this report itself in which the proof of what I have said can be seen at a glance. Let me mention some of them. I have mentioned Professor Brambell, the Bishop, Julian Huxley, Professor Thorpe, and others, and there is another whom I shall mention in a moment. They all take, not the so-called scientific approach, but the ethical approach. And let that not be forgotten!
Now, my Lords, what is the so-called"scientific"approach? The scientific approach appears to involve the belief that the only evidence of stress in an animal is provided by the protein metabolism; if there is not some change in the protein metabolism then it is impossible to deduce with any certainty that it is suffering stress, or is suffering at all. That is complete and absolute nonsense. Is it really suggested that the evidence given by Julian Huxley, when he wrote one of his letters, of the difference between the stress experienced by an animal at the London Zoo and that experienced when the same animal was free to roam at Whipsnade, ought to be disregarded because he had riot investigated the effect on protein metabolism? is there a single Member of this House who has not experienced and known that some animals are happy and some animals are unhappy? in a previous debate, a farmer was quoted about the pleasure he derived from seeing his animals gambolling in the field. Although it is said that we do not know whether an animal is happy or miserable, in many cases that is absolutely untrue.
I quite agree that these Codes, when observed, are sufficient to keep the animal
1216
alive, and sometimes something a little better. But, my Lords, I find it unbelievably repulsive if the only time an animal—which, after all, has a mind—is allowed to see God's daylight is when it is going to its own execution. The conditions of the production of white veal seem to me so unspeakable that I shall say nothing more about them. But if any noble Lord wants further comment I would urge him to read the speech made last Friday, when these Codes were before another place, by a man who is, I think, the Father of the House of Commons and who has himself represented with distinction an agricultural constituency and knows about farming—I am talking about Sir Robin Turton.
I said I would read a letter, or an extract from a letter, of another expert, making this point: that nobody should be deceived into believing that the ethical approach has not got scientific backing or that the so-called scientific approach is preferred by the scientists. I have permission to read either the whole or part of a letter from Professor Ewer of the Department of Animal Husbandry in the University of Bristol. I shall not read the whole letter, but perhaps the House would allow me to read an extract. This letter, I hope, will be published by The Times. It has not yet been published, but I have permission to use it:
" The survey by the veterinarians revealed a commendably small incidence of careless husbandry and overt cruelty. The modifications suggested to the Codes are modest enough and should receive public support. What is alarming is the revelation of serious dispute in the Advisory Committee's report. Support for revision of the Codes is gathered under what is called the ' ethical ' point of view. Every claim is then countered by arguments stated to be the ' scientific ' viewpoint. The inference is that scientific opinion is united on these matters and that it alone is guardian of the truth. This is not so. To counter every suggestion of allowing more space or comfort to a severely confined animal by claiming that there is no evidence of disturbance of protein metabolism is to reveal a surprising degree of scientific naïveté. This is not a precise nor, in all probability, a suitable measure of stress situations. Protein metabolism, so much dependent upon the amount and quality given in the ration, is widely different in pigs, poultry and ruminants.
" Until much more is known about precise measures of the effect of stressful situations, our Codes should clearly seek to give all farm animals the space allowances, comfort and health safeguards set out in the Brambell Report. The public conscience should not

1217
retreat in the face of a dubious ' scientific ' view."
I cannot believe that there will be many in this House who would dispute the passage that I have just read.
I have praised the Advisory Committee for their Report, and for giving us what, for convenience, they describe as the"ethical"and the"scientific"approach. So far as I know, there is only one man in England who has hopelessly misunderstood what has been said, but he, most unfortunately, is the Minister of Agriculture himself. I propose to read lust two sentences of what he said in the House of Commons on Friday. I hope I have not been too harsh, because I am one of his admirers, but I regard these as unfortunate lapses. He said:
" We have now reached the stage where we must try to separate ethical considerations on animal welfare from scientific considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/7/71; col. 1011.]
We have not reached that point. We never will reach that point and if we did reach that point we should show ourselves absolutely incapable of rational civilised thought. The next passage shows the basis and extent of his misunderstanding:
" The point about the Brambell Committee was that it looked at the problems entirely from the ethical point of view… "—[col. 1012.]
My Lords, I do not believe that anybody could even glance at the Brambell Committee's Report and come to that conclusion. What about Appendix III by Professor W. H. Thorpe himself? The fantastic inaccuracy of that statement really baffles description.
Then we are given a little lecture on the dangers of the anthropomorphic approach. If we see that an animal, a living creature, is miserable, and if we say so (with perhaps sufficient guidance from such men as Julian Huxley, who have spent their lives in this field and have a world reputation), is that anthropomorphic? If these scientists who study animal behaviour say that this animal is miserable because all its instincts are being completely frustrated, and it is not allowed to obey any of the natural instincts implanted in it, is that really something that we should ignore? Are we being anthropomorphic if we say,"We agree with this "? Are we being anthropomorphic when we say
1218
that men should be humane in the treatment of animals?"Humane ", by its very derivation, implies a quality of man. There is nothing anthropomorphic, in any bad sense, in having sympathy with a suffering animal.
The moral principle that I believe to be involved is fairly simple. I do not believe that men are entitled to use living creatures as mere things for their imagined benefit or convenience. I do not believe that we are entitled to deny them every element of a natural existence, regardless of their own nature, instincts and desires. I hope nobody will say that I am hostile to farmers; I am not. I have had among my friends a great many farmers, including, I hope, even Members of this House. Doctor Fleming, the then Lord Bishop of Norwich, was not hostile to farmers when he opposed these Codes and persuaded a large part of this House to vote against them. I do not believe that I am being the enemy of farmers if I say that I look forward to a revision of these Codes, which will make them conform much more nearly to the Brambell requirements.
5.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, since this subject was last debated these Benches have suffered two losses, which I to-day feel acutely, in the retirement of Dr. Gresford Jones from being Bishop of St. Albans, and the translation of Dr. Fleming from Norwich to be Dean of Windsor. I shall have great pleasure in conveying to him the kind tribute which was paid to him by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. It leaves me feeling extremely diffident about interfering in this debate, in which I have so little competence, but I feel that since the Bench of Bishops made a contribution to the first debate, and since my friend and neighbour the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells (who had hoped to speak last week) is not able to be here to-day, I should venture to make one point which I hope your Lordships will feel lies within my competence. I can make it the more briefly because I first want to endorse a point which has been so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I speak genuinely out of a rather ignorant but deep concern for all those aspects of the stewardship of the whole of our natural resources, of which

1219
we are happily becoming more conscious under the wide connotation now given to the word"conservation"and of which the whole topic before your Lordships' House is indeed one aspect. I speak also because I know from contact with farmers in my own diocese how greatly they care that the welfare of animals should be a combination of their ethical considerations with effective and efficient farming. It is to this supposed antithesis between the ethical and scientific considerations that I should like to return, following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford.
In the debate in this House in October, 1969, the then Lord Bishop of Norwich, said:
" Without confusing the difference of status of man and beast, it has always been recognised that, within their particular status, the animal has certain rights and that man has a duty to see that these rights are preserved. The Common Law recognises this in the many Acts concerning cruelty to animals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/10/69; col. 1341.]
I, too, rejoice that our country is giving a lead in these standards. I recognise the complexity of the issues which are raised to a non-farmer in the voluminous literature which I have looked at, but I should like to concentrate upon this ethical and scientific distinction, which seems to me so misleadingly made, and to have such disastrous consequences if it is misused, because it is surely wrong to suggest that the whole subject is to be conceived simply as a conflict and compromise between the ethical and scientific considerations.
Certainly, there are far-reaching ethical considerations lying behind the whole discussion. There is the whole issue of the nature of man's dominion over creation and the importance of knowing the difference between trusteeship and exploitation. There is the whole issue of whether man can degrade other species without in the process degrading himself. There is the whole urgent question in out time of how far that which is scientifically and technologically possible should, simply because it is possible, therefore be done. It is in the translation of such principles into practice that detailed and factual evidence must be enlisted. It is for this reason that the scientific and ethical considerations are not mutually exclusive. The ethical considerations and the scientific considerations mentioned on
1220
pages 1 to 5 of the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, in the form in which they are couched, often appear to be in conflict. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said, the distinction there made was intended to be a distinction of convenience and not of radical difference. Therefore, we must not regard the ethical principles as being simply starry-eyed idealism, while the scientific principles are regarded as the realistic ones. That is indeed a false contrast.
Ethics is, in the last resort, a recognition of reality. It is an obedience to moral law, to ignore which is to court some kind of disaster. On the other hand, it needs to be recognised that science often includes much subjective opinion—for example, in defining animal welfare in terms of this protein synthesis theory—that is still speculative. As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, the Brambell Committee was certainly not defective in scientists. I, too, have a copy of the letter by the Professor of Animal Husbandry at Bristol University, which I was intending to quote. But since the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has made such effective use of it, I shall repeat only the final sentence, lest in this whole discussion there should grow up a false attribution of authority to scientific considerations when they counsel caution, and a disbelief in the ethical considerations when they counsel us to go further. Professor Ewer concluded
" The public conscience should not retreat in the face of a dubious ' scientific ' view."
It is to endorse that plea that I venture to speak to-day.
6.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have been a farmer all my life, and I have also had considerable experience of wild animals, training sheep dogs and training horses, so I can claim to have a wide experience of animals from several points of view. I have never indulged in factory farming, though I have plenty of buildings which could be converted to that purpose. It must be obvious that the reason why I have not indulged in it is that I do not approve of it. I certainly welcome the amendments to the Codes but, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, they are rather meagre or marginal. From my point of view, the Codes themselves are,

1221
on the whole, inadequate. Many of them condemn animals and birds to an artificial way of life in which their natural instincts are frustrated to an abominable degree. It is true that, if you give an animal plenty of food so that he does not have to strive for it, it is a certain comfort to the animal. But when his movement is restricted and he is denied a free range, then his natural instincts are frustrated to a serious degree.
May I point out how very meagre and marginal these changes are? If we take paragraph 5 of Code No. 3, which is concerned with poultry, the amendment recommends the segregation of ailing birds wherever possible. One would think that that was common sense, but in a big hen battery it is very difficult for one man, who may be looking after 2,000 or 3,000 birds, always to tell whether certain birds are ailing. When we come to stocking densities—in other words, space allowances—it is wholly inadequate for a bird in a laying cage to have less than half a square foot. I think that is very cruel. Under the proposed alterations the Code will refer to"stocking densities"instead of to"space allowances ", but that is going to do very little to improve matters. I should like to delve into the subject of the space allowed to poultry, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, mentioned.
On the question of stretching wings, may I read a quotation made by an honourable Member in another place? In the New Scientist and Science Journal of June 10 Professor Hewer, who is Chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, took to task Professor Thorpe, who is the Professor of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge. Professor Hewer wrote:
" Surely Professor Thorpe knows that domestic fowls stretch their wings by extending them one at a time backwards and downwards, usually stretching the leg on the same side backwards simultaneously. The wing span can only have reference to flight, which in galliform birds "—
and by"galliform birds"the professor means birds such as partridges, pheasants, grouse and chicken which descend from the wild jungle fowl; in other words, birds which spend a lot of their time on the ground and nest on the ground—
" unlike passerines "—
1222
which are birds such as swallows or rooks, which spend a great deal of time in the air—
" only use their wings as a last resort in escape behaviour."
You have there a difference in scientific opinion, and it is obvious to me that Professor Hewer cannot have seen grouse flying off the moor to feed in cornfields, to feed on the stubble; he cannot have seen partridges flying to shelter or food; he cannot have seen hens on free range flapping their wings; lie cannot have seen hens dusting themselves and flapping their wings. It is really extraordinary, I think, for a professor as distinguished as Professor Hewer to say that galliform birds use their wings only in flight to escape from danger, because it is completely untrue. I can only imagine that the professor has never been out of a town, but I can hardly believe that.
My Lords, I also found some statements in this report of the State Veterinary Service rather perplexing. On the whole, I think that the reports and work of the State Veterinary Service are very good; but one report here I find rather perplexing, regarding the Cattle Code, Code 1, paragraph 5. They state—and here they are referring to the construction of floors for cattle:
" Our findings support the view that where floors whether slotted or solid are specially designed for the class of animal to be housed on them, and are properly constructed and maintained they cause no unnecessary suffering to cattle."
What do they mean by"no unnecessary suffering "? And as they say"no unnecessary suffering ", does not that therefore imply that where you house cattle in cramped conditions you must have suffering? I can only presume that it does.
The other factor about factory farming which I find highly objectionable is—actually, I find the whole of factory farming objectionable—the docking of calves' tails. A considerable time ago the docking of horses' tails was stopped by law. As to the docking of calves' tails, it is true enough that the veterinary service advise that it should be done only on the advice of a vet, and at a, very early age; but, if any flies enter the sheds where the calves are, it can be very uncomfortable for them if they have no

1223
tails with which to swish the flies away. The whole trouble with this Code is that it is not sufficiently mandatory. There appear to have been very few prosecutions. If one reads the report of the State Veterinary Service, one sees that they point out many instances where farmers have not abided by the Codes; but there appear to have been no prosecutions. There is really not much point in having a Code if you cannot implement it. Anybody who knows anything about animals knows that if you overcrowd them—rats, for instance—they indulge in various vices. I am quite sure that the chief reason for the tail-biting, the ear-chewing and all that among pigs is overcrowding, and probably boredom. That is probably one of the reasons why, in our own society, we have such a great increase in crime to-day. It is because we are overcrowded. I am quite sure that that is one of the reasons.
We must not get too emotional about these Codes. We must not attribute to the animals the same emotions as we have—the emotions that we would have to endure if we ourselves were confined under the same conditions. Nevertheless, I am extremely distrustful of the scientific evidence, because it is so much at variance. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I think, alluded to the fact that the defence for extreme confinement in farming appeared to rest on the fact that protein metabolism is the surest indicator of the presence of distress in an animal. I quite agree with everything my noble friend said. Of course you cannot fully measure the distress in an animal by its protein metabolism. We do not know enough about that. I think a great number of scientists will agree that scientific knowledge has not advanced that far. It is definitely not proven; you cannot go by that. It certainly runs completely contrary to my experience with animals.
I do not think many scientists really give credit for the sensitivity of some animals. I am also quite convinced from my experience of training animals, having myself come across instances of it, that some animals can reason. I think hardly any scientist would allow that an animal can reason, whereas I could give your Lordships many instances (though I will not do so) where animals have, to my
1224
knowledge, reasoned. But I must not speak too long, my Lords.
A NOBLE LORD: Why not?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I could give instances, if you like, but I think it is rather irrelevant to the debate. Noble Lords will have to take my word for this. I can tell any noble Lord afterwards if he would care to hear about them. As to confining an animal, Professor Hewer does not seem to think that a hen wants to flap its wings. He says that it is quite happy just stretching its wing and its leg at the same time. I wonder whether Professor Hewer would apply the same doctrine to, perhaps, a swallow. Would he think that, if you put a swallow in a cage, it would lose its migratory instincts, that it would be quite happy to stay in this country and not fly off to Africa? Sheep and cattle on the hills are better forecasters than the Meteorological Office. If a gale is coming up from the Atlantic, the sheep, cattle and deer, 24 hours before, all run for shelter. The reason is that they feel the pressure in their ears. It is rather like going into a tunnel when on a train. We feel the pressure of an approaching train. Animals' physical senses are better developed than are ours; so if you put animals into conditions of extreme confinement, it must be cruel. As various speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the right reverend Prelate, have said, it is a question of how far we are prepared to degrade ourselves by confining animals in order to make money. It really boils down to that. I suppose that animals will have to suffer to a certain extent to feed man. I agree that the ethical point of view is not completely separate from the scientific one. As Lord Conesford said, there are many scientists who support the ethical point of view.
Before I end, I should like to say that I sincerely hope that the Government will in the near future implement the Brambell recommendations, particularly for poultry and calves. We have had these recommendations for quite a long time but we are moving only very slowly towards their implementation. There is one recommendation that I should very much like to see implemented: that animals should have proper bedding. It is

1225
very unnatural for animals, wild or domestic, to lie down to sleep on a concrete floor. No animal would do that of its own volition. I could go on with these examples: for example, keeping stock in darkness. Animals like cattle were not supposed to spend their lives in darkness; if so, they would not have been given eyes. I should like just to say that I hope the Government will do all that they can when they next produce Amendments for the final version—and I hope it will be the final version—to bring conditions up to the level of, and if possible to improve upon, the Brambell recommendations.
6.23 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken I find the whole business of factory farming disquieting. It seems to me to be more scientific than ethical. But I shall not labour the distinction between those two concepts. That has been adequately dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and by the right reverend Prelate. If I were to do so, I should no doubt make noble Lords so bored that, who knows, they might begin eating one another's ears. There is one thing in the report of the State Veterinary Service to which I should like to draw attention; namely, the figures on page 119, relating to the density of stocking of domestic fowls. I shall not quote all that are relevant but the statistics can be summarised by taking those for total deep litter fowls: 71·4 per cent. density of stocking is below the Code guidelines; 20·6 per cent. is at Code guidelines and 8 per cent. is above the Code guidelines. As one goes down the page one sees similar contrasts in every case. Of those below the Code guidelines the percentage is very much higher than those at the Code guidelines or above them. I find these figures very disquieting, and I only hope that the Ministry of Agriculture does, too.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I must start by apologising to my noble friend Lord Selkirk and to all noble Lords for having risen to speak at the wrong time. I had not realised that there was a list of speakers. For approval of Motions like this very often there is not. I suppose
1226
it is true that a few rather insignificant crumbs of bread are better than no bread at all; and it is from that point of view that I welcome these Amendments. I should have liked them to have gone a great deal further. The one in the Code on cattle which is particularly welcome is the Amendment to Paragraph 20. I think that is a real improvement. Incidentally, I believe that the Minister of Agriculture himself has confirmed that the height at the shoulder is the total height and not merely the height to the withers. It might not be a bad plan to put that fact in the proposed new paragraph. That will make it quite certain that the animal has room to stretch its legs at rightangles to its body. Also I welcome the alterations to paragraph 22 in the Code on fowls. That has gone a step farther; but, quite frankly, I think we might have had a great deal more than this.
I should like to read the results of a recent opinion poll among a cross-section of farmers apropos whether or not they agree with certain provisions of the Brambell Report. First:
" Each animal or bird should he fed on a diet such as to maintain it in full health; that is, a diet in which there is no deliberate deficiency."
Ninety-four per cent. of the farmers consulted agreed with that. Secondly,
" Enough light should be available in farm buildings in order to see whether or not an animal is in good condition."
Of the farmers consulted, 95 per cent. agreed with that.
"Each animal should have access to natural light throughout the hours of daylight."
Of the farmers consulted, 72 per cent. agreed with that.
"All farm animals should be freely able to turn round in their pens except when tethered or restricted for veterinary treatment or for other temporary purposes."
Eighty-five per cent. of the farmers agreed to that. There are several others, but I will not weary your Lordships with them. But they show, as incidentally does the list of densities quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that farmers are far more willing to provide good conditions for their animals than the Codes recommend. That to me makes absolute nonsense of the statement that for economic reasons one has to restrict the Codes to a certain level.

1227
There is no getting away from the fact that we cannot use living creatures as machines. I am not for a moment saying that they are like human beings, but they are perfectly capable of feeling pain and also frustration. The frustration of lack of movement causes great mental stress to animals, who suffer from it to a great degree. Many of your Lordships will have suffered from mental stress when you have been sitting during the past months in the same position up to midnight or perhaps two o'clock in the morning; but at least you were free to get up at intervals and go for a drink or a meal. What is more, you were doing it voluntarily and you knew what it was all about. But suppose your Lordships did not know what it was all about, that you were not doing it voluntarily and that you were tied to your Benches, albeit quite comfortable Benches, so that you could not move. Add to that the fact that the Chamber was practically in total darkness, that all your upper teeth had been removed (to correspond with de-beaking), that the lobes of your ears had been cut off (to correspond with clubbing the combs) and add to that the fact that it was not just for one day but for the whole of your lives—is that a very pleasant outlook?
I do not think that we have any right to subject living creatures to that sort of life. This may be looked upon as mere emotionalism. It is not. It is perhaps ethical conviction, and I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Conesford, that we cannot separate science and ethics. We may regard one or the other as the more important. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has said that he regards science as the more important. I differ from him; I regard ethics as the more important. But it is significant that, as my noble friend pointed out, the most distinguished scientists of the day regard any subject from both angles and chiefly from the ethical angle. Science can produce some unpleasant things as well as pleasant ones. It produced the atom bomb. The only thing that has controlled the atom bomb has been the ethical consideration.
I sincerely hope that this idea that we have to throw away all our ethical convictions, simply for the sake of making it possible for people to make more
1228
money quicker, will soon fade out from Government policy and that very soon we shall have a new and much more revised form of these Codes and, incidentally, that they will be mandatory, because as they are at present they are completely useless. It is only thanks to the wisdom of Parliament that they work at all.
6.35 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, like earlier speakers, I would add a qualified welcome to the alterations to these Codes and echo a much stronger welcome to these two pamphlets with which we have been furnished. Further, I should like to thank the Government for giving us an opportunity, albeit on almost the last day before the Recess, of discussing these revisions of the Codes of Practice. I have read, with interest, in the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee the statement on page 2:
" The present Codes set bare minimum standards, and it would have been far better to have allowed ethical considerations to have filled the gap left by the doubts stemming from inadequate scientific knowledge. If this had been done the Codes would have set high standards and left no doubts about their ability to ensure welfare."
In the stock-rearing and stock-marketing field, this country has a leading position and has great responsibility to the stock world, because the sheep, pigs, cattle, turkeys, and so on, find their way, as breeding stock initially or as individual animals, from this country all over the world, and our conditions of management are guidelines which show how these animals are produced. I welcome the Codes on that account. I echo very heartily what has been said by other speakers, and I would add a further view—one which we have not heard in this debate up to now: the view of the consumer.
On this we have had very little information given to us in the Codes. I have scanned them over, without finding any details of the degree to which animals are to be subjected to the use of antibiotics. I read with interest, therefore, in the same report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee the statement on page 3:
" It is tempting to think that if an animal is thriving its welfare is completely covered. But this argument has many flaws. We are dealing mainly with young animals in which the longer-term effects of permanent discomfort may not become manifest. The animals'

1229
tolerance may be masked by the routine use of antibiotics and by the reliance some systems place on near-darkness or mutilation. It is a method of approach aimed solely at finding the lowest common factors on which an animal can exist."
That statement, I feel, is a very good summary of my views on this whole question, but I should like to dwell further on certain aspects of mutilation, because I feel that the Codes do not provide us with sufficient guidelines on the subject.
For instance, turning to Code No. 1, on Cattle, we have very little information on mutilation, though we start off, as with each of these Codes, with a piety to the effect that the avoidance of mutilation is one of the basic requirements of animal welfare. However, when we get down to details, the question of castration is avoided altogether in Code No. 1. In paragraph 32, we have very little information or advice on the disbudding of calves and the handling of fractious or horned cattle and the point on docking, to which my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has already referred, is left in the air. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that further consideration should be given at an early date to the question of mutilation, not only of cattle but of pigs, to which the same docking details refer. There is the further point under the same Code on pigs of detusking boars. I feel that the information here is very slight, and perhaps the Code could be expanded a little.
With regard to the proposals in the other Codes on turkeys and domestic fowls, I was delighted to see that the alterations to the two Codes concerned go a long way in this direction. However, there is further progress to be made on the question both of debeaking and of toe-nail cutting. I do not wish to go into any greater detail at this stage on the question of mutilation, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give this matter their urgent and particular concern.
6.41 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, first I must declare an interest in this subject, because on my farm livestock are kept intensively. I want to begin by thanking my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for both these reports. The report of the Chief Veterinary Officer is, I think, reassuring
1230
within the general context of this system: the fact that over 4,000 farms have been visited by the Ministry's veterinary officers and only 36 of these have been found to fall below standard, and to be at a standard where pain and distress were being caused. As a result of this survey the Ministry's Chief Veterinary Officer has made the recommendations that we see in the Amendments to the Codes before us. In my opinion, they are unexceptionable, and I am glad to see that the National Farmers' Union have also accepted them, with one exception; namely, that they are against the modification recommended for the single penning of cattle. Otherwise, they accept them generally, and this, I think, is to be welcomed, because the National Farmers' Union speak for the factory farmers who keep the livestock, and we certainly want their co-operation in this general field. To me, it indicates that the standards of the original Codes were set about right in terms of the general standards of stock-keeping in this country.
I notice that in the note which they circulated the National Farmers' Union expressed anxiety about the future, especially in the light of our possible entry into the Common Market, to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred. If and when this happens, the British farmer, as we all know, will be in straight competition with the European farmer, and although some sections of British farming—that is, of course, cereal growers—will benefit, in the main the livestock growers will not. We should bear in mind that all livestock sections—milk, pigs and poultry—operate on very small profit margins. I would just add the point that in the past year many hundreds of poultry farmers have gone bankrupt, and many thousands have packed up altogether.
I am glad to join with other noble Lords in taking credit for the establishment of these Codes. This is unique, and it is something for which we as a country can take credit. But while this is an achievement to be proud of on humanitarian grounds, it is right to bear in mind—and I know that this is borne in mind by my noble friend and by the Minister—that the Codes inevitably carry economic implications which can have some effect on costs of production. But, with the standards as now defined in the

1231
Code, and as now established and here amended, my personal view is that there should not be anxiety on economic grounds, even when we have to meet the direct competition of European producers, who almost certainly will not be subjected to such Codes. Broadly speaking, these are the normal standards of good commercial stockmanship employed in intensive methods of stock-keeping.
This brings me to the major issue on which a number of noble Lords have spoken; that is, the principle of intensive farming methods. I feel that I should say a word or two about this before I conclude. My noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Conesford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and others, have spoken strongly, and indeed passionately, on this matter; and certainly in some of the speeches there has been a strong indictment of the whole principle of these intensive or factory methods of stock-keeping. The right reverend Prelate made an interesting comment about the philosophical considerations of stock-keeping and man's management of animals for the commercial supply of food and livestock products. This, I think, goes to the heart of what we are talking about.
I would ask noble Lords to focus their minds for a moment on the reality of this. Take the most fundamental livestock product of all—milk. We have taken the natural cow, whose function is to produce enough milk to suckle her calf, and no more, and have bred her up to produce 4, 5, 6 or 7 gallons a day. When she calves, her calf must be taken away from her in the first three days, and her milk is then taken to be delivered to us in the towns to keep our lives going. This is the first reality of our milk supply, our livestock farming. Here we have done something completely unnatural. But if we are to have regular supplies of milk—and earlier this afternoon we were discussing the importance of milk as a nutritional aspect of our lives—we must, as a start, completely change the whole course of nature for this animal, keep her in completely unnatural conditions and oblige her to produce far more than Nature ever intended. Are we to say that this is wrong in order to get a supply of milk for our people?
1232
Turn now to pigs. The wild pig, in its natural habitat, probably produces a litter of two or three piglets, enough to keep the stock going. We have bred her to produce a litter of 12, 14 or 16 pigs. Why is this? It is because we want rashers of bacon on our breakfast table. Then take the chicken. In her natural habitat, in the jungle farms in the Far East, she produces probably three dozen eggs a year. We have bred her up, in order to give us an egg on our breakfast table every morning, to produce about 20 dozen eggs a year. Do we want these livestock products as an essential part of our lives? Because if we do we must accept that we have contrived, by intensive and highly selective breeding methods and by intensive and highly selective management, to train and breed these animls to produce the food on which our lives depend.
This then brings us directly to the question of factory farming. It is virtually impossible nowadays for a farmer to make a living out of these three principal products unless he uses intensive methods. I do not wish to bore the House with my own experiences, but I have mentioned on a previous occasion that in days gone by on my farm I had cattle roaming about the fields, and also chickens—hundreds of them. From a commercial angle, perhaps we kept that system going far too long, until indeed we were making a substantial loss. And at that point either we went out of business or we changed the whole structure of the farm so that we could make our production economic and we could make a profit—because if you cannot make a profit you cannot remain in business. It is as simple as that. So in the last ten years we have had to transform the whole of our farm, and our methods are completely intensive and no chicken to-day lives outside at all. Eighty-six per cent. of our eggs are produced in batteries. Why?—because that is the most efficient method of producing eggs. Even on my farm we have a battery. We are primarily breeders, and therefore our breeding flocks will naturally mate and live in deep litter. But all our customers have birds in batteries and we of course wish to see how our birds can perform when they reach the customers; so we have a battery and the birds produce very well there.

1233
These are the realities of factory farm production to-day and these are the realities which produce our daily food. Here I come to the point made by my noble friend Lord Conesford. He argued brilliantly, as he always does, that the report of the Advisory Committee which set out the ethical and scientific arguments completely confused the issue. In fact he argued that there was probably more scientific evidence to support the ethical arguments than the reverse. I would ask my noble friend to believe that in the farming world there are many ethical farmers who are using intensive methods to-day and there are just as many ethical men and women there as there are among those who plead this case so passionately here. If we are to take one in good faith, we should also take the other in good faith.
This report of the Advisory Committee, in my opinion, does a good service to all of us because it sets out the basic problem. Of course I should like to join the angels with my noble friend here. I like to see animals moving about the fields, I like to see chickens living in the fields—although they do not look so happy in the middle of winter, I can assure my noble friend, and they are much happier inside. I should like to do all this. But if I wish to remain in business I have no alternative, nor has any other producer, but to use intensive methods. These are the realities of the situation. The pressures to bring down the price of food and to keep it down are great and the margins within which a farmer must operate to-day if he is to remain in business are very small indeed. Therefore I reckon that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture did us all a great service in publishing this report, which was a most exceptional thing to do, and setting out the realities.
What the Government are trying to do, quite rightly, and what the previous Government were also trying to do, is to find some reconciliation between the decent humanitarian feelings which we all have about animals and the harsh realities of getting a regular supply of food at the lowest possible prices. That is the attempt here, and I think it helps us to see the two sets of argument set out. I hope that as the years go by they will come closer together, though I daresay
1234
there will always be a fair amount of gap there. However, I would ask my noble friends on both sides of the House to bear in mind, when they are delivering their strongly, passionately and rightly-held feelings about this subject, that there is another side, which is that the farmers, whose daily job it is to produce our food, are just as humanitarian.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I know quite a number of farmers who do not use factory farming methods but who still manage to make a profit. Therefore it is not true to say that you cannot make a profit unless you use factory farming methods.
6.54 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as one who has made his living out of livestock farming for twenty years I should like wholeheartedly to endorse the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I have to face the practicalities of these things, and I am quite certain that in many cases, as the noble Lord suggested, animals are much happier indoors than they are left free outside, especially, as he said, in the middle of winter. I have seen animals up to their knees in deep mud, thin, miserable, with their hacks to the wind and the rain, only wishing that they could have a nice straw bed indoors. However, I was stimulated to speak this afternoon by what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, and into trying to recollect certain behaviour by cattle. I am most concerned that nothing should ever get into these Codes for want of correct observance of animal behaviour. Animal behaviour is very interesting.
For instance, I do not know, if I asked your Lordships, how many would be able to say whether a cow gets up with her front legs first or her back legs first. The reason that a cow kennel works is that some kennelman observed that a cow never goes up a step backwards—she can go down backwards but not up—and this is the only reason that a cow kennel keeps clean. What the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said—at least I think I heard him say this—was that an animal ought to have enough room to stretch out its legs at right angles. I have seen horses lying with their legs at right angles but, to

1235
the best of my knowledge and belief, if ever I see a cow with her legs stretched out she is dead. A young calf will lie with legs straight, but I think I am right in saying that a cow will not.
LORD SOMERS: I am sorry to interrupt, but I was speaking of calves.
LORD RAGLAN: It applies to very young calves but not, one might say, to calves of middle age: that is to say, those of two months or so, and there are all kinds of characteristics of animal behaviour which must be taken into consideration. I hope that noble Lords who, from the most laudable motives, oppose factory farming do not let their humanitarian or, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said, anthropomorphic, ideas run away with them when making comments or suggestions as to what should be put into the Codes.
6.59 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I say at the outset that I am very grateful indeed to noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon in this debate, because among other things they have highlighted the difficulty faced by any Committee that may sit, whose object and business is to advise Ministers: that is, that there are widely differing opinions, which are held on all sides with great conviction and sincerity. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, because he really touched the nub of the question when he said that these were the realities of agricultural life. Once we start to domesticate anything we move away from the natural; and as we live in this world we continue to move away from the natural, whether it concerns animals or human beings. We drive ourselves around at great speeds in motor-cars, and we shut ourselves up in air-conditioned offices, all of which is not natural. Yet this is part of progress. In the same way, animal husbandry has also been affected by technology, and who would say that this should not be? Who would say that technology should not be allowed to advance? It must do so; it is inevitable. The real problem is where does one draw the line and say,"This is so far as we shall permit progress in the realms of animal husbandry "? This is a problem which has exercised many people.
1236
The remarks which have been made this evening have been an indication of the wide variety of feeling that is felt about this matter. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk, have complained that in these Codes we used different bases from those which Brambell suggested. It is perfectly true that the Brambell Committee put forward certain recommendations, but all the way through the Report they stress that there was lack of scientific evidence and they were bound therefore to give their own judgments. One of the suggestions of the Brambell Committee was that an Advisory Committee should be set up. The Committee was set up and it came to different conclusions. It is perfectly justifiable for noble Lords to say that they have come to the wrong conclusions. This is bound to be a matter of opinion.
It was also suggested by my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Somers that these Codes should be made mandatory. They are not mandatory because it is difficult to find a set of Codes which can be such that any farmer who disobeys one facet of them should therefore be liable to prosecution. I suppose it would be possible for this to be done, but we do not believe that it is the right way. The way that this has been constructed is under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, in the very first section of which is the specific statement that there should be no undue pain or distress. I am paraphrasing the words. Where there is undue pain or distress then that is a criminal act. With all the advice that has been given to the Minister, the welfare codes are suggestions as to the lines beyond which one might be running into danger.
The non-compliance with the Codes as such is not an offence, but where a person is prosecuted under the Act then the fact that he has not complied with the Codes can he taken in evidence against him. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard asked why there were not more prosecutions. There would be more prosecutions if it was considered that there was deliberate, purposeful negligence. We have taken the view that the right way is to try to point out where people are going wrong—and the veterinary service have done this—and try to encourage them to take the right

1237
course and the right point of view. The report of the veterinary service shows that they went to a vast number of places—over 4,000—and there were very few places where the Codes were being contravened. In those where they were being contravened, the mistakes were pointed out and in all the cases the faults were found to have been rectified. We believe that this is the right way to deal with the matter.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to pigs when they were penned. Pigs have the rights specified in the Code, to be able to stand up and lie down at will. This is different from the way in which it is stated in the cattle Code, when it is suggested that the amount of width of a pen should be the same as the measurement from the top of the shoulder of the animal to the ground. The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Conesford referred to ethical and scientific views put forward by the committees. The right reverend Prelate said that this was a distinction of convenience and not difference. I believe that that is the correct attitude to take. These are different approaches, but they are not the only ones. When there is a huge diversity of opinion it has been found helpful to try to precipitate the two types of view, as was done in this Report. My noble friend Lord Conesford delivered a monumental broadside on my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture when he said that the Minister appeared to be the only person who could not understand the fact that the ethical and scientific views should be taken together. This was not the view that my right honourable friend was putting forward. He was not saying that the ethical view takes less of a priority than the scientific one. The point that he was trying to make was that where you have to legislate—if one uses the word"legislate"to cover the production of Codes—you can only do it, within reason, on fact.
My noble friend is an eminent lawyer and he, of all people, knows that all his arguments go on fact. He would be one of the first to criticise if my right honourable friend came up with some suggestions for alterations or restrictions in a certain law without producing any evidence that it was necessary. That does not mean to say that the ethical point is of less importance than the scientific
1238
point. My right honourable friend has the view that where there is to be a change there must be reasonable evidence that this is necessary.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for dealing with this matter. I did not criticise the Advisory Committee for dealing with what they called the"ethical"and the"scientific"approach. They explained quite clearly that they did not regard these as mutually exclusive. I criticised the idea that the second approach had scientific hacking, but that the first did not. I pointed out that the so-called"ethical approach"had just as much scientific backing as the other approach. The statement which I criticised above all (and it may have been a slip) will he found at col. 1012 of the debate in another place on July 30, in which the Minister said:
" The point about the Brambell Committee was that it looked at problems entirely from an ethical point of view not a scientific point of view."
That is simply untenable.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend has said that there is just as much scientific evidence to back up the ethical point of view as the scientific. I would, with respect, have doubted that somewhat. In the very first page of the report of the Advisory Committee, in the middle paragraph, there is reference to the ethical and scientific arguments and it goes on to say:
" These are not mutually exclusive nor do they represent the exclusive views of two sets of members. Members have been guided by considerations derived from both methods of approach. Of the seven key welfare issues mentioned in paragraph 12 "—
and were my noble friend to look at paragraph 12 he would see that they are mentioned—
" the first four would be unconditionally accepted under the ' scientific ' approach ".
Then it goes on to say that the remaining key factors would obviously be open to doubt. Where one has the problems of trying to consider all these difficulties one is bound to move, I would suggest as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has suggested, slowly and on the basis of facts and evidence. That is not to underrate one iota the views which my noble friends I have mentioned.

1239
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me one or two points about the veterinary service, and I will furnish him with the information. The field service has 400 veterinary officers in post in England and Wales and Scotland. Their average age is 49 years. Three hundred and forty-two of the officers are concerned with welfare matters in the field and at ports, and the actual visits to livestock premises are being carried out mainly by the 260 officers in the veterinary officers' grades 1 and 2. The service has 40 vacancies on its complement, all in the basic recruitment grade. During the period between the coming into operation of the 1968 Act, on September 3, 1968, and June 30, 1971, 51 officers have been recruited, and in the same period 51 officers have resigned by normal wastage, and a further seven have left in the Agricultural Development Advisory Service reorganisation. The veterinary staff are required to cover the full range of duties that the service is charged with carrying out which includes dealing with outbreaks of notifiable diseases and disease eradication schemes. The time available for each of the many duties of the service obviously varies widely from time to time and between one area and another. The service has three officers engaged full-time on welfare work at headquarters, and we estimate that some 3 to 4 per cent. of the time of the 260 officers in the field who bear the main burden of welfare visits to farms is spent on that work.
The noble Lord went on to ask:"Are the Government satisfied that there are a sufficient number of inspections?"I think the answer must obviously be:"No; the Government are not satisfied," and I do not think they ever can be. Because if there are to be adequate supervisory powers, it means that there will be vast numbers of highly skilled people going round farms checking up to make quite certain that farmers are acting in accordance with the Codes. This may be something that is desirable, but I am sure that, on balance, the noble Lord will agree that such highly skilled officers could probably be best utilised in doing work for which they are better qualified. Again, that is not to underrate the need for the work to be done.
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has spoken, but before I conclude
1240
I should like to mention one other point. My noble friend Lord Sandys asked one or two specific points with regard to de-horning. De-horning is governed by the Protection of Animals (Anæsthetics) Acts of 1954 and 1964 and these expressly forbid without the use of an anæsthetic the de-horning of cattle, and, except by means of chemical cauterisation applied in the first week of life, the disbudding of calves. Anaesthetics in these cases are usually given by injecting a suitable local anæsthetic around the nerve supplying the area. The noble Lord also referred to the castration of pigs. Again, this is not covered in the Code because Section 1(3) of the Protection of Animals (Anæthetics) Act 1964 has the effect of limiting castration without anæthetic to the first two months of life and of forbidding castration by a rubber ring or similar device to restrict the flow of blood unless it is applied during the first week of life.
There are a great many points which I know noble Lords have raised which they may wish one to answer. I have tried to answer the majority—
LORD CHAMPION: Hear, hear!
EARL FERRERS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD CHAMPION: I said,"Hear, hear! "
EARL FERRERS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought he was saying,"No, no." I would merely say to noble Lords that we are grateful for what they have said, and I hope they realise that these Codes are not the product of a cavalier Ministry of Agriculture which does not really care about these things; they are the product of a tremendous amount of work and effort, care and advice given by a tremendous number of people. We hope that the balance is reasonably right. It may well not be. We know that it will not satisfy everyone, but I hope that your Lordships will approve these Codes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I remind him of one question which I asked? Are these to be regarded as minimum standards or are they to be regarded as norms?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not quite certain what is meant by"minimum standards ", but these are to be recognised as standards beyond which it would be dangerous to go. Having said that, I would add that it is not an offence to go beyond those standards, provided that undue pain and suffering has not been caused. My noble friend will realise that it is perfectly possible to cause undue pain and suffering, and therefore for a farmer to be liable under the Act, although keeping well within these Codes. But these are recommended Codes beyond which it is undesirable to go.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 2 (PIGS) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 2 (Pigs) of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 3 (DOMESTIC FOWLS) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the alterations to Code No. 3 be approved.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 3 (Domestic Fowls) of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 4 (TURKEYS) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Order.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 4 (Turkeys) of Recom-1242
mendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRAFFIC CONTROL: USE OF ADVANCED LIGHT SYSTEMS
7.18 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the necessary directions to ensure that full advantage is taken of the flexibility and other benefits afforded by the advanced traffic light systems in London and other large towns. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been discussing for some hours animals confined in stalls. I want to discuss in a few minutes human animals stalled in cars, in front of and frustrated by traffic lights. I must first apologise to the Minister in asking him to remain. As a Whip, he has probably spent more hours in this Chamber in this past very arduous Session than almost any other of your Lordships. I apologise for detaining him for even an extra few minutes, but I feel it is worth while spending a moment or two in considering whether we are making the optimum use of our roads; whether we are using traffic lights which give us the smoothest flow of traffic. There are some 12 million private cars on the roads of the United Kingdom and nearly 2 million commercial vehicles, and every person who drives a car or a commercial vehicle is interested in this subject. I would say that almost every taxpayer has an equal interest in the subject, because our road systems are very costly.
I suppose that all Members of your Lordships' House use a particular route more frequently than others, and if they are thinking about the matter they must also know of certain sets of traffic lights which leave them deeply frustrated because they appear either to be partly unserviceable or, alternatively, incorrectly adjusted. I think we can be proud of the British system of traffic lights because it is the only system which operates with a mat; and since the mat is actuated by a vehicle the light is adjusted automatically to the flow of the traffic. In the United States of America traffic lights are very carefully adjusted but they are on a fixed time cycle, which of course can

1243
vary according to the time of the day or the night.
In this country we have infinite flexibility, but I submit that we are not making the optimum use of the built-in flexibility. I get the impression that the old Ministry of Transport—now the Department of the Environment—is more interested in the engineering than in the science of traffic flow, and I have to confess that there are occasions when I feel that the police are more interested in parking offences up culs de sac than they are interested in traffic flow on our trunk roads. Road widening is extremely expensive, it is very much cheaper—and, incidentally, quicker—to make the optimum use of our existing road services. The figures I have discovered are that at the average light-controlled intersection the lights cost about £3,000. If you create a roundabout it will handle less traffic but it will cost about £30.000. If, in turn, you then come to a flyover, which may mean taking valuable buildings away, you have to multiply that figure again by ten, and you are probably in the area of £300,000 or more.
Curiously enough, although Britain had some of the earlier traffic light systems, this country now has very many fewer than most other highly developed countries. I have the figures for London, where there is one traffic light for every 7,000 inhabitants; in Hamburg, there is one traffic light for every 2,000. But I do not think this is a measurement of our efficiency. If the lights are well controlled, then the fewer traffic lights there are, the better. It is a fact that the number of controlled crossings in the whole of the United Kingdom is not as great as the number of controlled crossings in Manhattan Island alone. So there is a wide variation—although I concede, of course, that traffic in the United States is far denser than ours.
My first question, then, is: are we servicing the lights sufficiently often? I understand that service contracts are given to the two manufacturers of traffic lights in this country, and these contracts ask them to do preventive maintenance on the lights about once every three months. Of course they can be called out at police instigation when an obvious fault develops, but I still wonder whether this is the right rate of inspection. It is the
1244
rubber mat that gives the greatest trouble. The rubber mat was designed some 25 years ago, when traffic was much lighter in quantity and, of course, very much lighter in weight. In addition, we have a spillover of oil on our roads which also harms the rubber to a considerable extent. This consists of oil fumes and oil vapours.
As a result of this experience manufacturers in this country are progressively going over to an induction loop. Your Lordships will have seen some of them; they are buried in the tarmac of the road surface. But these are still suffering some teething troubles, although obviously the amount of maintenance needed should be much less. We must all have sat fuming in front of traffic lights when there has been an obvious fault; and when a fault develops the lights go over to an automatic fixed time cycle. This is why we sometimes find ourselves sitting in front of a red light with not a"sausage"in sight in any direction—cat, mouse, child, pedestrian or car. You sit there for hours while the traffic light ticks through its time cycle. I am told that the way to get this rectified is to report it to the police, and I would recommend that course to your Lordships. I should like to ask the Minister what percentage of the crossing lights have a fault of some sort or another in any one year. Secondly, how long is it before the fault is reported, and how long before it is corrected?
The second point I wish to raise is this: do local authorities spend enough—and it must be decentralised to them—in checking the systems to make sure that they have an optimum adjustment? This need not be expensive. Of course there are trained consultants who can be employed. I am not suggesting that local authorities should have a large staff to do this, but I am suggesting that people should he contracted to undertake this function. I would point out that anyhow in the school holidays there are many interesting observations which can be done, for a payment, by school children. I know of one case where a firm were doing a study and asked their apprentices to go out. It was a sunny day and the apprentices were absolutely delighted to go and check how traffic was flowing. That was part of the training of the mind, and they thoroughly enjoyed it. Students could also be employed on a holiday job in this way.
I have another question. Does the Minister think that the Road Research Laboratory are doing enough in regard to this question of traffic lights? Have the Ministry encouraged research into this question? They might found a traffic light Chair at some university. Are our technical colleges being encouraged to promote a study of traffic lights? What are we doing about tidal flow? I know that in recent years this system has been instituted on bridges over the Thames and on the whole it works admirably, but I wonder whether it could, with advantage, be extended. I have learned that the Manchester City Engineer estimated that by introducing tidal flow—that is to say, giving optimum inflow in the mornings for traffic going into the city and optimum outflow in the evening—he had saved, on a short length in Brook Street 500 yards long, £250,000 which would have had to be spent in construction. That was five years ago, and I imagine that if it were to-day the saving might well be £500,000. Here is a way of instituting tidal flow which is very largely used in the United States of America. I have seen in the United States on one occasion seven lanes in and only one lane out at certain times of the day. We do not seem to have done this in this country. Why not? It is a much better way of achieving a smooth traffic flow.
Then, we seem to be going slow on the introduction of computer control. This was tried in West London on the Cromwell Road, and from my experience in driving along the Cromwell Road it appears to work admirably. It has now been tried for some years: ought we not to extend it? It was disappoint-ting to find that the G.L.C. has given one contract to a West German firm for a set of 300 computer-controlled traffic lights. It is sad that it should have gone to West Germany, where there is a monopoly by one firm, whereas we have two competing firms in this country.
All noble Lords who are drivers know of some sets of badly adjusted traffic lights. Most of us know when we are approaching them and we find some way round. In my twenty years as Member for North Hendon I suppose I drove from Westminster to North Hendon six times a week—three times out and three times back—and as I live out in that
1246
direction I added that number of journeys as well. If I had to pick out one set of what I would call"rogue"traffic lights it would be on that road—and you must remember that it is an important road, because the road to Hendon is the main feed from M.1 and A.1 and A.41. Two of those roads are possibly the most important roads in the whole of Great Britain, so one would think that there, after vast sums of money have been spent in making it a road of three-lane traffic going North and three-lane traffic going South, with a central reserve, tremendous attention would have been given to make sure that the traffic lights were properly adjusted.
If I may mention one set of traffic lights that I would describe as a"rogue"set, it is the set at Arkwright Road on the East side, and Lymington Road on the West side. So far as I know, those lights have not been adjusted for two years, and all six lanes of traffic are brought to a halt, first while traffic filters in from Arkwright Road on the East and then while traffic is allowed in from Lymington Road on the West. Why the traffic cannot be allowed to flow across I cannot understand, but nothing seems to have been done about it. Your Lordships will know of one particularly bad bottleneck where some new traffic plan and some new lights are highly desirable; that is, at the southern exit out of Hyde Park at the Alexandra Gate. After you have crossed the Serpentine going South towards Kensington Road, there is almost invariably a pile-up of traffic which takes one up to 10 minutes, or during commuting hours up to 20 minutes, to get through. Before the War one used to be able to go in at the top of Queen's Gate, pass in front of the Albert Memorial and get through that way. Why has this route been closed? It was open for thirty years to my knowledge. Now it has been closed. Have not the traffic managers studied this way of relieving the bottleneck? There is also Kensington Palace Gardens—I know it has a number of Embassies in it. Perhaps it could be used as a one-way road—it is very wide—to relieve that tremendous bottleneck getting across the Park, which has to be done by Kensington Old Church Street, which is not a good road, narrow and twisty, or by Park Lane, right at the other end of the Park. Here again, I

1247
should have thought that some study could produce useful results.
What of the future? Ought we not to go in for computer-linked lights, as I have suggested? The average set of lights is probably between 15 and 20 years old, but the system is potentially efficient and potentially flexible. There is a small analogue computer in these traffic but have we the right programmer which will set the right programme on the computer? I suggest that we have not. What is being done to use what is called the arterial mode? This means that the main traffic road gets overriding priority and the lights are automatically green for that traffic unless a car appears at a side road. After seven seconds the lights go back to give overriding priority to the trunk road. I have seen it in one place only. Why is this system not used more universally?
I would summarise by saying that we have potentially the best and most advanced traffic light system for our big cities anywhere in the world. But I submit that we are not making the optimum use of it, partly because we are not servicing it sufficiently often, but more especially because we do not have enough people applying themselves to get optimum results. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me in this direction. In helping me he will be helping 12 million other motorists, and with less frustrated motorists there would be less accidents; they would be more content and would drive better as a result.
7.33 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Orr-Ewing, for being kind enough to give me a little forewarning of some of the more technical questions that he was going to ask me. I assure him that I am more than happy getting the information to stay and answer his Question; it is a pleasure to do so; and in getting the information I have learned a lot myself.
The Department have aways encouraged, and where necessary instructed, local authorities to take advantage of traffic signals so as to ensure, so far as possible, that they work efficiently and reliably. The United Kingdom, as the noble Lord so rightly said, has potentially
1248
the most flexible traffic light system in the world, for as long ago as the early 1930s it was appreciated that fixed-time signals—that is to say, signals working on phases of fixed duration—were very inefficient in light traffic conditions. Development work on vehicle detector systems was encouraged, and in 1934 the Department decided that from that date all new traffic signal installations would be of the fully vehicle-actuated type. Thus for a number of years practically all the traffic signals in the United Kingdom have been fully vehicle-actuated and capable of adjusting their timings to take account of vehicle numbers.
As improvements on vehicle detection took place, so they were adopted by the Department, until in 1967 it became obvious that the surface type of vehicle detectors, which, as the noble Lord said, is known as the pneumatic mat, could no longer stand up to the acceleration and deceleration of modern traffic or to the weight and volume of present-day traffic. Development work was carried out within the Department, and a new system of detection was evolved which utilises loops of cable, buried beneath the carriageway surface, which are not subject to the wear and tear of traffic. These detectors are known as buried inductive loop detectors, and a system of vehicle detection using these detectors was developed known as"System D"detection. In 1968, the Department decided that all new traffic signal installations should use this new form of detection.
The noble Lord said there had been certain unsatisfactory teething troubles, and this is indeed the case. In the old days, when the system was first started, the slot, as it was called, was filled with black copper slag. Now we have a substance called epoxy resin which has managed to cut out this, and as a result the loop has much more stability. The loop method of vehicle detection is the only one now being used. I understand that the cost is not quite so high as the noble Lord indicated; I believe that it is about £1,800. It is used at the moment, I would guess, for about 10 per cent. of our traffic light controls in the country, which is a start. Obviously, these loops are very much more efficient than the old mat, which is now almost out of date, though we still have that with us.

1249
It must be appreciated that to keep traffic signals working efficiently, adequate maintenance must be carried out. In nearly all cases maintenance is carried out for the local authorities by the traffic signal manufacturers within the terms of a formal contract. The basis of this contract was laid down in 1934, and since that time more and more facilities—I think about half a dozen—have been added to the traffic signals, and the wear-and-tear on them has increased considerably. Although the signal manufacturers carry out maintenance to as high a standard as they can within the sum of money received for the service, recent surveys have shown that at any one time over 50 per cent. of the traffic signals in the country have faults of varying severity—not a very happy figure, I agree. It is clear that the existing maintenance arrangements are insufficient to keep traffic signals working efficiently.
There has been a general decline in the standard of maintenance, and this has been aggravated since the direct grant to local authorities was removed in 1968. To-day, the responsibility for maintenance rests entirely on the local authorities. Some are exemplary: the G.L.C. is already forming its own inspectorate to check on signals; others do not appear to be giving maintenance quite the priority it requires. Many surface detectors are not replaced as they become worn out, and vehicle-actuated signals are often changed to the less satisfactory fixed-cycle type, with the result that technology is losing all the benefits of modern design and invention. This is a very sad state to have to confess to. It is a matter of cost. The signal companies have to come along every three months to do an investigation. With the mat type of detector, used in about 90 per cent. of signals, the cost of renewing the mat completely is allowed for only once in two years. In certain cases the mat may not last more than six months, if that. When the mat goes, all flexibility is lost and you go back to a fixed time light.
Over the past two years the Department has negotiated with the manufacturers of this traffic signal equipment for a new form of traffic signal maintenance, and at the present time discussions are taking place with local authority associations about the adoption of this better and more extensive form of maintenance.
1250
As I have said, inspection at the moment takes place about every three months, but under the new proposed maintenance arrangements local authorities would make their own inspections and report faults. These would have to be repaired by the signal companies within a specified time, and if they failed they would be penalised under this system. With this new contract, the signal companies will, in addition, carry out an annual overhaul of each traffic signal controller. Although the day-to-day operation of traffic signals is the responsibility of the local authority, any problems arising with them in the United Kingdom are dealt with by traffic engineers in the divisional road engineer's offices in England, and in the chief road engineer's offices in Scotland and Wales.
The noble Lord asked about the staff. The quality of the staff is of a very high standard, but there are too few to carry out surveys on the traffic signals in their respective divisions and to ascertain whether or not they are working correctly. That is in any case the responsibility of the local authorities. There are about thirty engineers and technical officers within the Department, but in addition there are staffs employed by local authorities dealing with traffic problems throughout the country. Salaries in the Department range from about £1,600 per annum to about £3.800 per annum. The Department, as such, has not created a Chair of traffic management at any university at this moment, but there are, of course, a number of universities and technical colleges who run traffic management courses. At this moment London University is co-operating with methods of calculating settings for traffic signals with the Road Research Laboratory, and this work is going on the whole time. The Department has published a book called Traffic Signals (the road research technical paper No. 56), which is filled with valuable advice for local authorities, and if local authorities wish for advice the technical officers of the Department are only too pleased to come and advise them.
The latest development in traffic signal control—as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said—is the use of computers to co-ordinate the traffic signals in an area to minimise delay within that area. Experiments with this form of control,

1251
known as"area traffic control ", were carried out both in West London and in Glasgow, as the noble Lord said, and the result of these experiments has shown that the benefits to traffic are considerable. He talked about tidal flow. Of course we in Britain generally have not yet got the road system which the noble Lord talked about in America, with five lane roads. They are still unheard of in Great Britain, but we have small starts in tidal flow, as can be seen over bridges over the Thames, where even now in the rush hours they flow different ways in the mornings and the evenings. The experiments that were carried out show that the evaluation of the saving in time is several times greater than the capital outlay in the first year. This is a fact. The results of these two experiments were so successful that a circular (Circular Roads 13/70) was issued to local authorities on May 27 last year, explaining the advantages of area traffic control and giving guidance as to the conditions where area traffic control would be beneficial. It offered a 75 per cent. grant towards those schemes which complied with certain criteria, and invited local authorities to make application for suitable schemes. Response so far has been very encouraging. At the present time 35 local authorities have made application for their areas to be considered.
The most advanced scheme is that for the Greater London Council Phase I, which will control 300 sets of traffic signals with a computer. Tenders have been accepted, and the Greater London Council have been informed that equipment will be delivered in the autumn of this year. It seems probable, therefore, that control of the signals will start to be exercised in the spring of next year. I nope that when the noble Lord motors about Hendon, and these other roads that he discussed, he will begin to see a marked improvement. Any particular points that he has mentioned in this debate will of course be looked at by my right honourable friend and the Department, and if they find anything of interest I will write to him with anything they may bring up. Of course, his advice is always most welcome.
The Department has been asked more than once to introduce the Continental system whereby during quiet traffic
1252
periods the traffic signals are switched out and replaced by a flashing amber light. This proposal has been resisted by the Department, because with fully vehicle actuated signals working properly there is no delay, and in the absence of opposing traffic a driver approaching a red signal should get a right of way almost immediately. Therefore, we come back to our old friend—lack of maintenance. But the signal equipment is not to blame if it is properly kept in order. This device is used on the Continent only because most Continental traffic signals work on a fixed-time cycle and this inevitably leads to delays in quiet traffic periods.
The Department is also asked from time to time to allow the use of a filtering movement into a stream of traffic which is running. This idea has been resisted because of the difficulties for pedestrians and the risk to vehicles unless they have clear visibility of the approaching traffic. Where it is considered possible to allow a filtering movement in safety, then a green arrow is shown which allows the filtering movement. We can think of several of these which have been installed recently. Alternatively, at sites where there is a heavy left turn a triangular island can be provided so that drivers can turn left in effect before they come to the red signal, and are then faced with a normal"Give way"sign. This is considered to be a better solution than permitting a filtering movement against a red signal.
At a number of junctions where a special pedestrian phase is provided, and which is called by a push button, local authorities have found an unwillingness by pedestrians to push the buttons. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, shakes her head, but in fact one of the Ministers of the Department went with some officials the other day and was given an example of this. There was a group of people waiting there, and not one of them was pressing the button. All were waiting for something to happen.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I must see these junctions where people are very busy pressing.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in these cases they have had the traffic signal controller modified—the places where people do not seem to use

1253
them—so that the pedestrian phase comes in automatically on each cycle. This means that in quiet periods the pedestrian phase appears when there are no pedestrians requiring it. The local authorities obviously have to strike a balance between the difficulties caused by pedestrians not pushing the buttons, and the delay to traffic at light traffic periods.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, people are not reticent to push the button on their television sets, and would it not be better to encourage them to push the button on pedestrian signals rather than handicap all traffic as a result of their present reported reluctance?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the more we can get that view over the happier the Department will be. It would be far cheaper for the Department to keep traffic flowing smoothly. The time lost by people costs money, so business tells us, and cost analysis shows us this. So the more the noble Lord can get this point across to his friends, and everybody else, the better we shall be pleased. It has to be borne in mind, also, that all-red periods are sometimes included in traffic signal phases for reasons other than assisting pedestrians. They have to be used, for example, at wide junctions to permit adequate clearance periods at the change of phases. Also, where a right-turning movement is difficult an all-red period is occasionally provided to assist right-turners to clear at the end of the phase.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for giving me this opportunity to talk about some of the facilities available with traffic signals, and about some of the problems that are encountered in their use. I hope that what I have said will have shown that the traffic signal equipment used in the country to-day is capable of handling traffic safely and with the minimum of delay. I have talked about the importance of the maintenance factor and, I cannot emphasise too strongly that the savings in delay to traffic by having traffic signals working correctly are very large; therefore good maintenance is essential.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT
  U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT
  GASOMETERS: PROTECTION AGAINST LIGHTNING
  GASOMETERS: PROTECTION AGAINST LIGHTNING
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DETENTION OF SUSPECTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DETENTION OF SUSPECTS
  FAMILY COURTS
  FAMILY COURTS
  COMMUNITY CENTRES: AID FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
  COMMUNITY CENTRES: AID FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS