Sitting of 9 February 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    BRISTOL CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
    Bills read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

      CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)
      CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  D. & J. FOWLER LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

    HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  KESTEVEN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE & LOMBARD BANKING) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

  STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  TORBAY CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    European Economic Community
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with the brewing industry with respect to the European Economic Community draft directive on brewing.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): Our discussions have enabled us to identify the points we would consider with the European Economic Community should developments on the draft directive make this appropriate.
    Dr. Gilbert: The Minister will be aware that nothing has yet been settled by the Europeans as to what they will do on this subject. Is he making any representations to the Europeans about this in the interests of British beer drinkers?
    Mr. Stodart: We do not regard it as possible at this stage to get E.E.C. action on the draft postponed as it is a matter for the E.E.C. There have been discussions.
    Mr. Lipton: In the course of these discussions, is the Minister bearing in mind the need to abolish the tied house system in this country?
    Mr. Stodart: That is entirely outside the scope of the E.E.C. draft directive.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the advantages to Great Britain in an enlarged Community of the relatively large average size of farms in Great Britain.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The country will benefit as a member of an enlarged Community by increased agricultural production and, generally speaking, large farms should be more efficient producers than small ones.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the average size of the British farm is much larger
    250
    than that of Continental ones and that larger farms than the average should do better with the higher prices which will accrue to this country after we join the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the structure of our industry, the scale of our enterprises, the size of our farms and the skill of our farmers, our farmers need have no fears about the Common Market.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is no secret that many farmers, especially small farmers, will have to go out of business if we enter the E.E.C.? Obviously, he has made calculations with regard to the numbers involved. Will he now be candid and tell the House what his calculations are in this matter?
    Mr. Prior: For one thing there is no secret, and, for another, I think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is complete and utter nonsense.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the newly introduced farming levy will prove an advantage to Great Britain when it comes to adapting to Community farm policy.
    Mr. Prior: The interim import levy schemes will, when introduced, provide some of the mechanism that will be required to implement the common agricultural policy and will give valuable experience in operating it.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in order to take full advantage of joining the E.E.C. and the higher level of import levy, farming capital is required, and that this is gravely short at the moment?
    Mr. Prior: This is tending to edge towards a question about the Farm Price Review, about which negotiations are about to begin. I think that I had better not comment.
    Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Guildhall on 1st February, when he said that if we enter the Common Market we shall provide a large and expanding export market in agriculture for the Common Market countries?
    Mr. Prior: That is just facing up to facts, as my right hon. Friend always does. There is no doubt that there will be increased exports from Common Market countries to this country if we join, but that is another reason why British agriculture should also expand.
    Sir Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what level he is holding discussions with the National Farmers' Union on matters affecting British agriculture during the negotiations on British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Prior: The National Farmers' Union has been kept fully in touch with the progress of the negotiations. I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met the President of the union on 5th February for cordial and useful talks.
    Sir Clive Bossom: I am confident that my right hon. Friend is making every effort to obtain the best possible terms, but is he aware that the horticulturists feel that they have been left out in the cold, especially the apple growers? They want further discussions and more information, because they want to plan their own future.
    Mr. Prior: I am well aware of what I know to be a serious problem, particularly for apple and pear growers. At the same time as we saw the President of the National Farmers' Union we saw the Chairman of the Central Horticultural Committee of the N.F.U. There are regular meetings between my officials concerned with the negotiations and those gentlemen. If there is anything further that I can do, I shall certainly try.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the N.F.U. annual conference very recently the farmers forecast the worst slump since the 1930s, with many bankruptcies and a great deal of unemployment among farmers and farm workers, and on explosive rise in food prices? What has he to say about that?
    Mr. Prior: Two things: first, this has nothing to do with the Common Market; second, it is an apt commentary on hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he
    252
    will give details of the decline in the numbers of agricultural workers in the European Economic Community and in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Between 1959 and 1969 the number of agricultural workers in the United Kingdom declined by 286,000. There is no comparable figure for the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline in the number of workers in agriculture in this country and the increased output that has taken place over the period augurs well for the British farmer competing against agriculture within the Six?
    Mr. Stodart: The fact that despite that fall in agricultural manpower productivity has been rising by between 5 and 6 per cent. a year is an excellent testimony to what my hon. Friend has just said.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Minister explain why both he and his right hon. Friend can never give any facts and figures concerning the E.E.C. when they are of an adverse character but can always give them when they are pro-E.E.C? To what extent has he discussed these matters with the agricultural workers' union as well as the N.F.U.?
    Mr. Stodart: I should not have thought that what I have just said would necessarily reflect at all badly upon the E.E.C. Therefore, I reject the hon. Gentleman's premise.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the introduction of factory farming into this country not reduce the number of agricultural workers still further? What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Stodart: I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman has not realised that we have moved on from the last Question.

    Beers (Alcoholic Content)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will require the brewing industry to indicate the minimum alcoholic content that their draught and bottled beers possess at the time they are put in bottle or cask.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. Such a declaration could be misleading.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a supplementary answer by one of his colleagues just before Christmas I was told that the only objection was one of practicality, the reason being given that some brews continue to ferment in the bottle or cask. This question takes care of this problem of practicality. There is no reason at all why— —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) must not make observations; he must ask questions.
    Mr. Stodart: It is wise that we should look at the experience of other countries which have tried this. In Canada the declaration of alcoholic content is prohibited as it is thought that it might lead to increased drunkenness. The Netherlands require it as a means of encouraging temperance, but it is said to have had precisely the opposite effect.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect of the increase in oil prices over the last six months on retail food prices.
    Mr. Prior: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to hydrocarbon oil products. Any such effect would be very small, but all increased costs militate against stable prices.
    Mr. Eadie: Since we are told that there are about six months' oil supplies in the country, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that when prices are increased, as they will be, he will not allow profiteering on the existing supplies, which would mitigate against the consumer and increase the cost of living?
    Mr. Prior: It is not for me to give that sort of assurance. The increase in prices which will result from any increase in oil prices will be very small.
    Mr. Evelyn King: In his capacity as Minister of Food, will my right hon. Friend consider whether differential taxation in respect of transport, rates, selective employment tax or anything else that he can think of can bring relief to food retailers, who need help?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The first part of it is not a matter for which I am responsible, but I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the level of food prices and how much they have risen compared with the general level of incomes since June, 1970.
    Mr. Prior: Between June and November, the latest date for which comparable figures are available, the Food Index increased by 0·6 per cent. and the Index of Average Earnings by 3·4 per cent.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is still a good deal of concern about retail food prices? Will he step along his corridor, see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to abolish selective employment tax in his next Budget, since it makes such a significant contribution to all retail food prices?
    Mr. Prior: As I have said already, these are matters for my right hon. Friends. But we are pledged to abolish S.E.T. within the lifetime of this Parliament, and, unlike right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, we keep our election pledges.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bexley Housewives' Protection League is gravely concerned at the way in which food prices are soaring? If he receives representations from that body, will he undertake to give them proper consideration?
    Mr. Prior: That was a supplementary question which the hon. Gentleman wished to ask on the previous Question. But, of course, I will always give due attention to the Housewives' League or any other body which contacts me.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the percentage of its income spent by the average family on food has decreased over the past 12 months?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. That is perfectly true. The process has been going on now for a number of years.
    Mr. Barnes: Is not the price of manufactured food products likely to go up by at least 10 per cent. in 1971? In view of that, would not the Government be in a better position to secure the co-operation of sections of the community like the Post Office workers if they acted directly to restrain increases of this order, as they said they would originally?
    Mr. Prior: I do not want to be tied to any figure that the hon. Gentleman offers as being the likely increase in the prices of manufactured food products. However, it is true that by far the largest element of costs in manufactured food products is the price of labour. If we can get inflation under control, we shall be able to reduce these prices.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis he is making of the effects of competition in stabilising food prices.
    Mr. Prior: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) on 8th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 59.]
    Mr. Barnes: While the claim that competition will stabilise prices may be an important part of the Government's new philosophy, to which the Minister frequently refers, is it not the case that it has little relationship to the realities of the food marketing situation at present? The trade itself is forecasting a likely increase of 10 per cent. on the retail price of manufactured food products during 1971. Will the Minister tell us what has to happen to prices before he is prepared to act directly to restrain increases of this order?
    Mr. Prior: We hear all this talk about acting directly on food prices. This is what the previous Government tried to do by the early warning system, but prices rose during the last five years more than twice as fast as in our last five years.
    Mr. Bowden: I accept my right hon. Friend's contention that competition will affect prices. However, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look at the case of the old-age pensioners, who have been hit particularly hard by food price increases in the last 18 months?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. The old-age pensioners and those on fixed incomes suffer most as a result of inflation. As we deal with inflation, we shall help to get the position under control.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the information service on essential key food prices, which he has introduced in place of the previous early warning system.
    Mr. Prior: The purpose of the new arrangements is to keep me informed of prospective movements in the prices of certain major products with which I am concerned. I am circulating a full list of the products in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The industries concerned have agreed to co-operate.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister also circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or let us know, what information is being asked for from the firms concerned? As the Minister is so pleased that he has dismantled my right hon. Friend's warning system, may I ask what is the point of getting this information? What will he do with it when he has got it?
    Mr. Prior: I consider that it is important that I should know what is happening to the prices of important items. That is the main purpose of obtaining the information. The early warning system did not stop prices rising. We shall stop prices rising in this country only if we do not pay ourselves more for doing no more work.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether under his revised system he will be able to detect the influence on food prices caused by such intangible but very important price advances as the proposed 6d. a gallon increase in the price of petrol?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. We have a very full department looking at this type of problem the whole time, and we are able accurately to assess that type of increase, and a good many others too.
    Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many parts of the country it is becoming impossible for retirement pensioners and others living

    257
    alone to buy less than six eggs, large packets of pre-packed cheese and large packets of pre-packed bacon? Has the Minister any instructions for retailers and others about how they can help people in this predicament?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Lady has raised a very important matter. I should like to look into it to see whether there is anything which I can do to help. Certainly I feel that retail shops should do everything in their power to be of assistance in this kind of matter.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the early warning system was a deterrent over a long period? If the Minister finds that increases are not justified, what steps will he then take?
    Mr. Prior: The early warning system was a singularly ineffective deterrent, because it resulted in prices going up 25·9 per cent. in the last five years compared with 11·4 per cent. in the previous five years. I am not prepared to come to the House and introduce what I consider to be merely public relations measures which have no bearing on the problem.
    Following is the list of products:

    Bread and flour.

    Cakes and biscuits.

    Tea and coffee.

    Margarine and cooking fats.

    Canned and frozen vegetables.

    Chocolate and sugar confectionery.

    Beer.

    Animal feedingstuffs (compounds and concentrates).

    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from food manufacturers and distributors about price policy after decimalisation; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: Pricing policy is a matter for the firms concerned, but I see no reason why decimalisation should affect their price policies.
    Mr. Juddand betrayal amongst a wide cross-section of the British public, particularly those on small and limited incomes, at the Government's doctrinaire refusal to intervene on price increases? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will deal remorselessly with anyone who tries an
    258
    inflationary and anti-social process by profiteering following decimalisation?
    Mr. Prior: There are two parts to that question. On the part dealing with decimalisation, I am quite certain that vigilance and publicity of cases where perhaps retail shops are putting up their prices are extremely important and are the best safeguards. I have already covered the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that decimalisation is not really the problem at the moment regarding increased prices? It is the Transport Act and all the other Measures which the previous Government brought in. They are the guilty people and they have a real nerve to come to this House and say what they do.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounded more like a comment than a question.
    Mr. Prior: It was an excellent comment, Mr. Speaker, and one with which I agree.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is taking any special precautions or making any examination of the trend in prices in the period immediately following decimalisation? Is the Minister aware that in New Zealand three or four weeks after decimalisation there was an upsurge in prices? Should not the right hon. Gentleman be doing something about it of commending the efforts of the Young Liberals in this sphere?
    Mr. Prior: I thought that the Liberal Party found it difficult to commend the efforts of the Young Liberals; so I should not be expected to do so.
    We are monitoring prices in the next fortnight, as we always do; and the fortnight immediately after decimalisation comes in they will also be monitored. My advice to housewives is to complain to the shops, and, if not satisfied, to shop elsewhere.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what action he will take before, not only after, decimalisation? Is he aware that particularly in some supermarkets Marvel Milk, for instance, costs as much as 10d. more for the same size of tin and that when such matters are referred to his Department

    259
    nothing is done? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he is going to do about it?
    Mr. Prior: It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to make this row now about decimalisation. After all, they dragooned their members through the Lobby for a Bill which they did not want, and now they are having to pay for it.
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a full explanation of the assumptions and calculations supporting his estimate of the likely increase in food prices as a result of changing over to the levy system.
    Mr. Prior: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 7th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 39–40.]
    Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that he is deliberately understating the effect which his new policy will have on food prices? In view of his repeated claims for his new policy, does he not accept that he has an obligation to the House to publish a full and detailed explanation of the basis for these estimates?
    Mr. Prior: I will, of course, consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. Since we are only in the process of introducing an interim levy system which is designed to limit Exchequer support, rather than go further than that, it would be premature to go further than I have been able to go at the moment. My assessment at the moment is that the levies which we propose would, over the next three or four years, add perhaps up to 5–6 per cent. to the cost of food during that time, an increase in the cost of food of just over 1 per cent. per year.

    Housewives' League (Representations)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations on matters for which he is responsible he has received from the Housewives' League; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Prior: As I have previously told the hon. Member and other hon. Members, this type of information is not readily available and cannot be obtained
    260
    without disproportionate cost.—[Vol. 809, c. 239; Vol. 808, c. 59–60.]
    Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the wrong Question, I believe.
    Mr. Prior: No; I have answered No. 4.
    Mr. Eadie
    Mr. Wellbeloved
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) must make up his mind whether he wants to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Eadie: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman could not make up his mind. I was trying to assist him. Are we to take it from his answer that we must regard the Housewives' League as a Tory front organisation which protests only when Administrations other than Tory ones are in office?
    Mr. Prior: It is obvious from that supplementary question that I gave the right answer. We get a large number of letters on a variety of subjects. Although they are all answered, an immense cost would be involved if we attempted to tabulate them all so that we knew exactly the organisations from which they came and the topics which they raised.

    Brucellosis
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the dangers of brucellosis, to humans and animals.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friends are fully aware of the brucellosis risk to both human and animal health, and are determined to expunge the disease from our cattle population as soon as practicable. Introduction of the new Brucellosis Incentives Scheme has speeded up progress in this direction, and the first compulsory eradication areas are to be announced in the spring.
    Sir G. Nabarro: While commending my hon. Friend on his choice of words, which precisely fits my needs in this context, may I ask whether, although progress is being made towards the desirable state of totally expunging brucellosis in

    261
    humans, it would not be better to regard brucellosis as a prescribed industrial disease?
    Mr. Stodart; This is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 20th November last.
    Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to the fact that this disease in humans has recently been rechristened "The Kissing Disease"?
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: While congratulating the Minister and his hon. Friend on adopting the scheme that we introduced for the eradication of brucellosis, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is vital now to get on with the area eradication schemes? He promised us a date some months ago. Can he say when area eradication schemes will be announced, because farmers are waiting for this information?
    Mr. Stodart: We are awating the final results of the screening tests being carried out by the Milk Marketing Board. I hope to be in a position to give the House this information in the next few weeks.

    Thames Barrage
    Mr. Trewasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Essex and Kent River Authorities will have progressed far enough with their technical investigations to enable him to publish an estimate of the cost of the flood defences in Essex and Kent arising out of or associated with the Thames Flood Barrier.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The problems associated with raising the estuarial flood defences in Essex and Kent are extremely complex and are likely to have a material effect on cost. Ministry engineers are in close consultation with the two river authorities, but it is too early to forecast when reliable cost figures will be available.
    Mr. Trew: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave concern amongst ratepayers
    262
    and riparian owners in Kent and Essex about the possible financial burden arising from these works? Will he take an early opportunity to publish his proposals for financing them?
    Mr. Stodart: As soon as we have got the rather complex problems worked out, I will endeavour to do as my hon. Friend asks. The question of grant aid has been agreed in principle for the river authority works. It is true that the actual financial arrangements have still to be agreed. I will endeavour to ensure that they are agreed as soon as possible.

    Home Market
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure for the home farmer an increasing share in the home market.
    Mr. Prior: It is the Government's intention to change the system of agricultural support and we have already taken steps to that end. When a full and comprehensive levy system has been introduced, it will help the expansion of an efficient agriculture by preventing low-priced imports from undermining the market.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the answer given to me on 18th January in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he saw no prospect of any reduction in the level of agricultural import quotas? In the circumstances, can my right hon. Friend explain how he expects to secure a larger proportion of the market for our farmers, and, as this is an area of policy in which farmers think that the Minister of Agriculture is able to represent their interests, what is he doing to show them that that is his policy?
    Mr. Prior: I assume from my hon. Friend's remarks that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was speaking in terms of Eastern European quotas, since the only commodities that we import under quota come from Eastern Europe. Levy schemes as such will raise prices in this country, so that the farmer will get his return from the market. This should enable him to expand production and compete favourably with other countries.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House is becoming concerned about the progress of his negotiations on these levies with overseas exporters? Can he say what progress he is making and when he will be able to give us details? It is said that New Zealand and Australia are especially concerned about the levies that he is seeking to impose. Can he be a little more precise and say what will be the effect of levies on imports of foodstuffs, especially of such commodities as beef, butter and cheese?
    Mr. Prior: Talks are still going on. They are of a confidential nature. I am not yet in a position to make a statement to the House, but as soon as I am, I will do so. In the meantime, the negotiations are proceeding, and they cover the commodities which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

    Rabbits
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his proposals to ensure that the rabbit population does not increase.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I propose to leave it almost entirely to farmers and other occupiers of land to take the appropriate steps, in their own self-interest, to keep their rabbits under proper control as the law requires.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my hon. Friend aware that that policy was adopted during the period when there were very heavy losses from an enormous rabbit population and that the rabbit clearance societies enabled the less responsible farmers to have their land as well as common land cleared of rabbits? What is the Minister going to do about it?
    Mr. Stodart: Grants will continue for the clearing of scrubland. My Department will be responsible for common and derelict land where responsible persons are unknown. I believe that it is right that an animal which can cause an immense amount of damage to a farmer's growing crops should be tackled by the farmer who will suffer the loss if he does not do so.
    Mr. Mackie: The policy being put forward by the hon. Gentleman failed in
    264
    the past and its failure was the reason for the rabbit clearance societies. It having failed in the past, may I ask why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it should succeed in future?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not think that spending £500,000 of public money doing something which farmers ought to do for themselves is justified.

    Potatoes (Prices)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the course of potato prices for the remainder of the current season.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I expect producer prices for maincrop potatoes to show their usual seasonal increases, helped by the success of the Potato Marketing Board's support buying programme. There will be some consequential increases in wholesale and retail prices, but they should remain well below last year's levels.
    Mr. Brewis: Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that prices will be reasonable towards the end of the season in May, but that, at the same time, the early potato crop in June from Scottish areas will not mean dumped imports from abroad?
    Mr. Stodart: On the first part of that Question, prices are expected to rise by some £10 a ton from their present level by the end of the season. But, as I have already said, retail prices should even then be below those of last year. On the second part of the question, it is a little early, when one does not know what sort of planting season we shall have apart from anything else, to forecast the position there.

    Fall-Back Guarantee Prices
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the fall-back guarantee price envisaged in the proposed new system of agriculture support will be guaranteed by deficiency payments.
    Mr. Prior: Fall-back guarantee will not be required under the proposed interim levy schemes since the present guaranteed prices will continue. The precise form

    265
    that the fall-back arrangements should take under comprehensive levy schemes is still being considered. They will need to be adapted to the needs and considerations of each commodity.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that prior to the General Election the agricultural industry was under the impression that, inevitably, a Conservative Government would back up the fall-back price with a deficiency payment, so that that fall-back price was a reality? If that is no longer the Minister's position, will he explain to the industry that the deficiency payments system may be removed completely?
    Mr. Prior: No, we have never maintained, and no one has ever said, that the deficiency payments system would continue once we reached the stage of fallback guarantees. What we have made abundantly clear is that in the transitional period—in other words, for the next three or four years—the guaranteed prices system will continue as it is now, and during that time we shall have consultations with the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies to see how best to implement the fall-back guarantee and at what level.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would the Minister be more precise on a very important point? Will he confirm that the fall-back guarantee will be a safety net, and a very low one, and that it will be used only in case of some emergency, which could well happen?
    Mr. Prior: I do not want to get drawn into a discussion of the level of the fallback guarantee at this stage, because no decision has been reached and no consultations have yet taken place. Certainly, the fall-back guarantee will be set at levels lower than the existing guarantee, but we shall be moving more towards target prices than we have done at the moment.

    Foodstuffs (Nutritive Values)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the regulations governing the nutritive values of foodstuffs.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
    266
    Food if he will introduce regulations to ensure minimum nutritional standards, and to regulate nutritional claims, in food.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: There are 27 regulations laying down compositional standards which ensure a minimum nutritive value for specified foods. Nutritional claims for all foods are controlled by the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and by labelling regulations.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not accept that the general public are becoming disturbed about the apparent deficiencies in our regulations compared with those of countries like the United States and Canada? Will he institute a survey in his Ministry of the comparison between our regulations and those of the United States and Canada to see whether we can tighten them up in view of other products which are coming on to the market?
    Mr. Stodart: I am aware of the recent review in the United States. I think that conditions are entirely different there. There is no shortage of essential nutrients in this country; the nutrient content of the nation's diet as a whole is satisfactory. I am prepared to look at this, but not, I think, to embark on a great exercise in depth.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: What further studies have been made by the hon. Gentleman's expert advisers since the regulations were made last year to take into account the ever-growing number of processed foods and the lack of adequate nutrition among elderly people and other groups? When he is considering this matter further, would he undertake to review those regulations in the light of these developments?
    Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Lady that these matters are kept under continuous review.

    Pigs (Intensive Livestock Production)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to abolish the use of sow stalls in which the animal spends its life and in which it can neither walk nor turn round.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Pigs Code provides that where sows are housed individually they should be able to feed and lie down normally and that if tethers are used they should not cause injury or distress. My right hon. Friend does not feel justified in banning the use of sow stalls.
    Mr. Burden: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the code is advisory only, that there is nothing mandatory in it, and that unless restrictions are imposed in these matters there will be considerable cruelty? If my hon. Friend feels so strongly about this, will he see that the code is observed?
    Mr. Stodart: With great respect to my hon. Friend, neither he nor I knows whether cruelty will be caused. This is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) when he was Minister, with our support, asked the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the State Veterinary Service to go into the matter. They have done so, and have laid their findings. We have placed them in the Library. That is more expert advice than my hon. Friend or I are capable of giving.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware that there is profound feeling in the country about some aspects of factory farming, notwithstanding the technical reports to which he has referred? If he is so confident that he can rest his argument on those reports, would he be prepared to see a deputation from the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming, which consists of a good cross-section of the community, to put some other facts before him?
    Mr. Stodart: I am perfectly aware—no one could fail to be—of public thinking upon the matter. I am always ready to see people who wish to discuss such matters with me. But I return to the fact that we cannot do better than accept the advice of those who know more about this than we do.

  COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECHES)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of all the official speeches
  268
  which he made at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. The proceedings of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings are confidential.
  Mr. Hamilton: How, then, does the Prime Minister explain the contents of a letter that I have received from the Library today stating that copies are being sent over to the Library today? Did any of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches include the advice that his legal advisers gave him about the legal obligations entailed in the Simonstown Agreement? If they did not, and if he had that advice at the Commonwealth Conference, why did not he explain that to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of any Commonwealth Conference speeches being placed in the Library. I have already told the House, when I returned from the Conference, that I explained to the Heads of Government there, first, what we considered to be the legal obligations on the British Government, and, secondly, what we believed to be in the general interests of British policy.

  SOUTH AFRICA (VISIT)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is that because the right hon. Gentleman has neither the time nor the inclination? Does he not recognise that Mr. Vorster has been saying some very kind things about him? In view of that desire for friendship of Mr. Vorster, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should reciprocate in some way?
  The Prime Minister: It does not in any way alter my approach, that at present I have no plans to go to South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind much deeper question as to the right way to deal with South African problems, I adhere to the view I have expressed in the House before, that trying

  269
  to ostracise South Africa does not produce the results that we want to see.
  Mr. Evelyn King: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whatever opinion may be held by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), no speeches ever made by the Prime Minister more accurately reflected public opinion than those he made in Singapore?
  Mr. Buchan: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the position? After all, it may be the only place that he might visit where he will get a welcome.

  CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER (MEETING)
  Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister of Canada.
  The Prime Minister: Following our recent meetings in Ottawa, Delhi and Singapore, there are at present no plans for a further meeting.
  Mr. Davidson: When the Prime Minister does meet Mr. Trudeau, will he bear in mind that his sense of humour is bound to be a little more sophisticated than that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? Will he not insult the intelligence of the Prime Minister of Canada by pretending to him that there is an overall strategic reason for supplying arms to South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of Canada fully appreciated the reasons which I put to him, and also recognised that Canada has not the same interests in the trade routes in the Indian Ocean as Britain has.
  Mr. Thorpe: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister of Canada fully appreciates the arguments he put forward, he would not, I am sure, wish to imply, or to have the House under the misapprehension, that the Prime Minister of Canada agrees with or accepts any part of his argument. Will he at least correct the record in that regard? Does he not accept that we are very surprised that the Prime Minister does not wish to keep in closer contact with those whom he regards as his chief allies in the defence of the free world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—by visit
  270
  ing Mr. Vorster, whose anti-Communism is such—[Interruption.]—that 90 per cent.—
  Sir R. Cary: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the rule suspended for the Leader of the Liberal Party's supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: My purpose is to get through as many Questions as possible, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to be brief.
  Mr. Thorpe: I will conclude in 30 seconds, barring interruptions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Vorster's anti-communism is such that 90 per cent. of right hon. and hon. Members of this House, under South African law and South African standards, would be regarding themselves as Communist?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had learnt from his experience yesterday of his daily increasing danger of boring and wearying the House with his charges. [Interruption.] I did not say that Mr. Trudeau agreed with any policy put forward by the British Government, and, therefore, the record does not need correcting. What I said was that he appreciated the argument and accepted that the decision is one for Britain, and Britain alone.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: So that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Vorster can know what Her Majesty's Government's intentions are about arms, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he intends to make a statement in the House on the Government's policy with regard to the shipment to South Africa of all those arms that were not in the very narrow list which the right hon. Gentleman's own Law Officers regard the Government as obligated to supply under the Simonstown Agreement? When he next meets Mr. Trudeau, will the Prime Minister make clear to him that what he said in Canada publicly about his obligation has been disproved even by his own Law Officers?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. If he reads the accounts of what I have said in Ottawa or in any other place where the Press has asked me questions, or in this House—indeed, if he asks any Commonwealth Head of Government what the Prime Ministers were told in Singapore

  271
  —he will get exactly the same answer—which is, as I explained to them, first, that these are legal obligations on the British Government, which have been set out by the Attorney-General in his advice to Parliament and which the Government have long been aware of; and, secondly, that there are reasons of general British policy, common sense and straightforward dealing why we should fulfil those obligations. When the Government think it appropriate to make a statement, we will do so.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I not only read what the right hon. Gentleman said but heard his voice saying it on the B.B.C. Is the Prime Minister aware that what he said then is very different from what the Law Officers have stated in their White Paper? If he wants to shuffle off the question about when he is going to make a statement, will he at any rate give an assurance that no arms will be supplied beyond those covered in the list—whether we agree with it or not—contained in the Attorney-General's White Paper?
  The Prime Minister: I shall give no such assurance. The Government will make the statement when they think it appropriate and not at the request of the Leader of the Opposition.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th January in London on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Barnett: Does it remain Government policy to beat inflation by concentrating on the public sector wage section rather than doing anything at all about economic growth and full employment? Is it intended to continue this policy through courts of inquiry, or is the present one intended to be the last?
  The Prime Minister: The speech by my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Gentleman refers was concerned almost entirely with monetary policy and its effects and its use as one of the economic weapons. My right hon. Friend dealt
  272
  in some detail with the way in which he proposes to use it. It is only one of the economic weapons we propose to make use of.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is his view that increasing unemployment, arising because of the failure of Rolls-Royce and other causes, is looked to as a curb to inflation or whether The Times political correspondent who attributed these views to senior Ministers this morning was misinformed?
  The Prime Minister: Any redundancies which follow from the Rolls-Royce situation are the consequence of that firm's failure and insolvency, not of Government policy.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman please for once answer the question? Is it his view, as The Times this morning said it was the view of senior Ministers, that increasing unemployment due to this and other causes will help to contain inflation, or is it not his view?
  The Prime Minister: It is not the policy of the Government to bring about unemployment for that purpose. These redundancies are here as a result of an industrial failure.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins
  Several Hon. Members
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy Jenkins.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it is acceptable to you, but I feel that it is not acceptable to the House that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) should have three supplementary questions when there has been none from this side of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I think that these are very much matters of self-discipline. I have encouraged, or tried to encourage, both Front Benches and back benches to discipline themselves.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: As you were good enough to call me, Mr. Speaker, which you would not have done had you not thought it right, may I ask the Prime Minister, if not "for that purpose", to use his own words, to what purpose

  273
  are the Government allowing unemployment to rise?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make the point that excessive wage increases of an inflationary nature, which he released himself and is now supporting, result in increased costs which price firms out of the market and lead to unemployment, he is absolutely right, and perhaps he will advise his hon. Friends behind him and the trade unions to learn the lesson.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY COUNTRIES (VISITS)
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to pay official visits to the capitals of the six member countries of the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: I hope to visit Bonn on the 22nd and 23rd March, but I have no specific plans for other visits.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas
  Hon. Members: Take him with you.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These noises waste time.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am always prepared to travel in good company. In view of the need to evoke a general political will in Europe if the present negotiations to enlarge the E.E.C. are to succeed, and since my right hon. Friend is liberally endowed with that quality—enough for six, if not for ten—will he reconsider this decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] If it is too long, it is due to barracking by hon. Members opposite. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision and enlarge his visit to include the other capitals?
  The Prime Minister: I should make it plain to my hon. Friend that I have not reached any decision about visits to the other capitals. The only firm commitment at this moment is to go to Bonn at the end of March. I do not exclude visits to the other capitals after that.

  BRIXTON (VISIT)
  Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Brixton.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make an official visit, Sir.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will bring very cold comfort to the rapidly diminishing number of Tory supporters in the Brixton division? Is he further aware that, in view of the Government's dismal record of continual failure, some of my constituents are beginning to press for Brixton to secede from the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to give me evidence of that. I know that there are particular problems in Brixton, which are being looked after by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. In the second of the points of order put from the opposite side of the House during Questions—a practice which the Chair in recent years has tried to have postponed until after 3.30—the question was raised about Front Bench questions. In the light of that and in the light of your reply, whether it was an official Ruling I was not clear, would you arrange for account to be made of the number of questions put from this Bench on various occasions between 1964 and 1970 when, for example, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, sometimes got up four or five times during questions, together with other of his right hon. Friends? Would you give an assurance that there will be no change in the practice of the House now that there has been a change of Government?
  Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point of order, I can say that I have spent a certain amount of time studying the records and they are not at all conclusive.

LAOS
Mr. Hattersley Mr. Hattersley (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the now confirmed reports of extensive fighting in Laos consequent upon the operation mounted by the army of South

275
Vietnam, he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as co-Chairman of the 1962 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I told the House on 3rd February that I was willing at any time to join with the Soviet co-Chairman to reconvene the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter. I repeated this to the Soviet Ambassador on the following day.
The action which has now been taken by South Vietnamese forces in Laos is a direct consequence of the flagrant violation of Laotian neutrality by North Vietnamese troops which has been going on for years. When those troops proceed to kill South Vietnamese, the reaction of that country is fully understandable.
Mr. Hattersley: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that unequivocal statement of Government support for what is happening in Laos, may I ask three questions? This side of the House, welcomes, of course, the renewed conversations with the Soviet Foreign Minister, but bearing in mind developments over the last two days, may we ask whether he will yet again make a specific approach offering our good offices to act within the terms of the 1962 Convention and, if he thinks that a specific approach is inappropriate, will he tell the House why?
Secondly, can he tell the House whether the Government of Laos have officially made any approach to Her Majesty's Government in their capacity as a co-Chairman? Thirdly, bearing in mind recent reports of the new relationship which has developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, may we be told if that new rapport resulted in this country being consulted before the United States took that action?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In relation to the original remark of the hon. Gentleman, I would refer him to a reply to a somewhat similar question given by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) in the last Parliament. He said:
"… a simple condemnation of the action of the United States, and of the United States
276
alone, could not be justified either in common sense or as a useful contribution to peacemaking in this area".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 218.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not departing from that point of view. I made a specific approach to the Soviet Ambassador five days ago and I do not propose to repeat this every five days. It is open to Mr. Gromyko to answer at any time and to reinstate the machinery of the Geneva Conference. The answer to the second question is that the Laotian Government have not made an approach to Her Majesty's Government. On the third question, Her Majesty's Government were not consulted by the United States Government. We were informed that no United States troops were taking part in this operation. I have constantly stated that the only status the United Kingdom has in this matter is as co-Chairman of the Conference which we hoped would bring peace if it was recalled.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recall any Private Notice Question or any request from the party opposite for special action by the Geneva co-Chairmen when a Communist offensive has been mounted?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am afraid that condemnation of the North Vietnamese for the violation of the neutrality of Laos has been singularly lacking from any quarter.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary's reply imply that he thinks that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is talking nonsense when he calls the American action deplorable?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think everyone deplores the extension of this war, but it would have been rather better if the condemnation of the North Vietnamese Government had been made from the start.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had not carefully considered what he said; he said that there had been no condemnation from any quarter about North Vietnam infiltration into Laos and other Communist attacks in Laos. I will not press him for an answer now, but would he look up the private record of our relations with the

277
Governments concerned and also statements made in this House? He will find that he is totally wrong. In this respect he is being less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and other members of the late Government.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would certainly not wish to be unfair to the right hon. Member for Fulham. He took a most courageous line in this matter all the way through—in sharp contra-distinction to some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Sir F. Bennett: Further to the last two or three questions, is it not a fact that the Laotian Government in their representations about what has been going on have openly placed the primary responsibility on North Vietnamese penetration of their country? Further, is it not a fact that so far as hearing about Private Notice Questions from hon. Members opposite goes, we did not hear any mention at all of North Vietnamese penetration?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is true that the Laotian Government have placed the primary responsibility on North Vietnam, although they, like everyone else, deplore the extension of this war. I would have thought that the whole House would agree that the constructive thing to do now is to try to reinstate the Geneva machinery so that we can get the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cambodia, South Vietnam and Laos.
Mr. Crawshaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the flooding over of this war into that part of South-East Asia has always been a real possibility, irrespective of whether American troops were there? Is it not equally important for us to try to realise that if there is further extension of the war into Thailand our own forces might be involved? Would the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage, if it did go into Thailand, our troops would be required?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a separate matter and matters concerning Thailand are for the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty. We have no obligation in respect of South Vietnam and we have made it clear that we are not involved in this war. The practical thing is for the Soviet Foreign Minister now to respond to my appeal to set up the Geneva Peace Conference.
Mr. Tapsell: Has not the change in the nature of the struggle in the area since 1954 made the co-Chairmanship machinery somewhat outdated, and might we not make more progress if we approached the Soviet Union with a view to associating some of the non-aligned Asian Powers with the discussions?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This may well be so. I am ready at any time to consult the Soviet Foreign Minister as to whether any variation of the Geneva machinery is desirable, and I am also ready to consult with the Chinese. The great advantage of the Geneva machinery is that it is there, it was kept in being for this purpose and could be resurrected quite quickly.
Mr. John Mendelson: Will not the Foreign Secretary accept that when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia hon. Members on this side of the House were the first to protest, and the Government then in office immediately arranged for the recall of Parliament and a debate. Has the Foreign Secretary seen the statement of the Prime Minister of Laos, Souvanna Phouma, protesting against the invasion, and will he not join the Secretary-General of the United Nations in condemning this extension of the war and make representations in Washington requesting the United States to withdraw all their forces and not to expand this war?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Question is about Laos and not about Czechoslovakia. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps recognise that the action of the North Vietnamese in mobilising an attack through neutral Laotian territory is likely to prevent and not accelerate American withdrawal.
Mr. Harold Wilson: What we really want to hear from the Foreign Secretary, instead of a general statement on the situation, is some filling out of what he said just now about possible changes in the Geneva machinery. Does he recall that in 1963, I think, when he was previously Foreign Secretary and there was further trouble in Laos after the 1962 Conference, he put forward the proposal that instead of calling the full Geneva Conference there should be a conference between the parties, the co-Chairmen

279
and the members of the Control Commission. This idea was unfortunately not then accepted. Since the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the last thing he can ever expect is that the Soviet Government will want a full-dress Geneva Conference with the Chinese present—he must realise that—will he give consideration to the proposal put forward by him at that time, and by others later, that there should be a more restricted conference of just the parties, the co-Chairmen and members of the Control Commission?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This might be possible, although the Russians have shown no sign of reactivating or wishing to reactivate the Control Commission. It would be fair to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that unless the Chinese are present at a conference there would be very little chance of peace.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your help and guidance? I do not know when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last answered Oral Questions in this House, but, through no fault of his own, he has not done so on at least the last two occasions when he was due to answer Questions and when it was reasonable, having regard to the point on the Order Paper at which the Questions appeared, that he might be expected to answer. The essential point about the order of Questions is that every Minister should answer Oral Questions at regular intervals, but this has not happened with the Attorney-General. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that back benchers on both sides of the House are not parties to the arrangements entered into through the usual channels, and I therefore ask you what protection you may be able to offer and what advice you can give in a situation which is becoming increasingly unhappy for many hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is very much in the hands of the House in this matter. I tried to bustle things along yesterday, and we got through 41 Questions. Today we were getting along fairly well, and then things did not go quite so quickly and we only got through about 27 Questions.
280
The old tradition was that Questions should be put in order to gain information. The modern tendency is that Questions are put in order to make political points, which was not the original idea of Questions.
This is not a matter for the Chair but for the House, and the Chair is very much in the hands of the House. All I can do is to try to hurry things along, which I promise to do. If the House wishes to change its rules of order, it must do so.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. Of course the Government are prepared to look at the order of Questions and the rota, which starts again after the Easter Recess, to see that all Ministers answer Questions, which is certainly our desire. All Governments have great difficulty in satisfying all requirements in working out the Question roster, but in conjunction with the Opposition and all hon. Members of the House we will try our best to do so.
Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order. In view of your stricture, Mr. Speaker, that Questions should be put down to elicit information, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the reply from the Minister is often that the information cannot be given because it would be embarrassing to the Government?
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order. Is it not obvious that this complaint and similar complaints which have been made in the recent past stem from the practice of giving subsidiary Ministers a lower place on the Order Paper? Would it not be better to revert to the practice of simply taking the Minister as he comes to the top of the list and starting, say, once every five weeks with the Attorney-General or another Minister?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is possible, but the House would find grave disadvantages in that course in relation to those Ministers whom the House wishes to question most. I am in the hands of the House, and I will consider that, but I hope the House will realise the difficulty of following that course.
Mr. Mackie: Further to that point of order. I hope the House will take note that out of 82 Questions today the Minister of Agriculture answered 21.
Mrs. Reneé Short: Instead of reorganising the rota of Questions to Ministers, will the Leader of the House say whether there is any chance of additional time being allowed for Questions, as this would be the real solution to the problem?
Mr. Speaker: Several points have been made on this matter. The hon. Member said that the Minister of Agriculture had only answered 21 Questions but I saw a number of disappointed faces when hon. Members were not called to ask supplementary questions. We have to get along as quickly as we can. This is not a proper matter for discussion now. It is a serious matter but not a new one. For 25 years there have been constant complaints about not getting through enough Questions. I hope the proper channels and those in authority will have regard to the points which have been made.
Mr. Mackie: Further to that point of order. Do not supplementary questions arise because of the unsatisfactory nature of the first answer?
Mr. Speaker: That is the view of every Opposition with regard to every Government. There is nothing new in it.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  BILLS PRESENTED
    SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES)
    Mr. Denis Howell, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Burden, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. William Price, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. Eric Heller and Mr. Lawrie Pavitt, presented a Bill to prohibit in certain circumstances the sale or resale of any ticket for entry or admission to any sporting event or entertainment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
    CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, supported by Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby and Mr. James A. Dunn, presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the carriage of goods by sea: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
    ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
    Mrs. Joyce Butler, supported by Mr. Edward Bishop, Mrs. Freda Corbet, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Charles Pannell, Miss Quennell, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, and Dame Joan Vickers, presented a Bill to make illegal, and provide for the prevention of, discrimination against women; to establish an anti-discrimination board; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th May, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 2nd February].
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 37

      ACTION BY COMMISSION FOR PROMOTING SETTLEMENT OF QUESTION REFERRED UNDER S. 35
      Amendment No. 684 proposed [2nd February]: in page 27, line 31, to leave out from the word 'provisions' to the end of the subsection.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 254. Noes 290.

      Division No. 127.]

      AYES

      [3.50 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Driberg, Tom

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Judd, Frank

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dunn, James A.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ashley, Jack

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kelley, Richard

      Ashton, Joe

      Eddie, Alex

      Kinnock, Neil

      Atkinson, Norman

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lambie, David

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lamond, James

      Barnes, Michael

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Latham, Arthur

      Barnett, Joel

      Ellis, Tom

      Lawson, George

      Beaney, Alan

      English, Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Evans, Fred

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Leonard, Dick

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

      Lester, Miss Joan

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Booth, Albert

      Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)

      Lewis, Rots (Carlisle)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Bradley, Tom

      Foley, Maurice

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Foot Michael

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Ford, Ben

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Ford, Ben

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McBride, Neil

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McCartney, Hugh

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Garrett, W. E.

      McElhone, Frank

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      McGuire, Michael

      Cant, R. B.

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Carmichael, Neil

      Golding, John

      Mackie, John

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Gordon Walker, Fit. Hn. P. C.

      Macktintosh, John P.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

      Coleman, Donald

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hardy, Peter

      Marquand, David

      Conian, Bernard

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hart, Ft. Hn. Judith

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Meacher, Michael

      Cronin, John

      Hilton, W. S.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Horam, John

      Mendelson, John

      Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Millan, Bruce

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Molloy, William

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Moyle, Roland

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)

      Jay, Rt. His. Douglas

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

      Murray, Ronald King

      Deakins, Eric

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ogden, Eric

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      John, Brynmor

      O'Malley, Brian

      Dempsey, James

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Oram, Bert

      Doig, Peter

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

      Orbach, Maurice

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Oswald, Thomas

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Palmer, Arthur

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Tinn, James

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

      Tomney, Frank

      Pardoe, John

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

      Torney, Tom

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Sillars, James

      Varley, Eric G.

      Pendry, Tom

      Silverman, Julius

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Perry, Ernest C.

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Small, William

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Prescott, John

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Wallace, George

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Watkins, David

      Probert, Arthur

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Weitzman, David

      Rankin, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Steel, David

      Whitlock, William

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Richard, Ivor

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Strauss, Rt, Hn. G. R.

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Swain, Thomas

      Roper, John

      Taverne, Dick

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Rose, Paul B.

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

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Costain, A. P.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Critchley, Julian

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Astor, John

      Crouch, David

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Curran, Charles

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Awdry, Daniel

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Balniel, Lord

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Havers, Michael

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Batsford Brian

      Dean, Paul

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Dighy, Simon Wingfield

      Heseltine, Michael

      Bell, Ronald

      Dixon, Piers

      Hicks, Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Douglas-Home, Pt. Hn. Sir Aloc

      Hiley, Joseph

      Benyon, W.

      Drayson, G. B.

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

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Biffen, John

      Eden, Sir John

      Holland, Philip

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Blaker, Peter

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Hordern, Peter

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

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

      Hornby, Richard

      Boscawen, Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Eyre, Reginald

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Farr, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Fell, Anthony

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Braine, Bernard

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hunt, John

      Bray, Ronald

      Fidler, Michael

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Brewis, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      James, 'David

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Jessel, Toby

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Jopling, Michael

      Bryan, Paul

      Foster, Sir John

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

      Fowler, Norman

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Buck, Antony

      Fox, Marcus

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Fry, Peter

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Burden, F. A

      Gardner, Edward

      Kilfedder, James

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Kirk, Peter

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kitson, Timothy

      Channon, Paul

      Goodhew, Victor

      Knox, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gorst, John

      Lambton, Antony

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Cower, Raymond

      Lane, David

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gray, Hamish

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Green, Alan

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Clegg, Walter

      Grylls, Michael

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

      Cockeram, Eric

      Gummer, Selwyn

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

      Cooke, Robert

      Gurden, Harold

      Longden, Gilbert

      Coombs, Derek

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Leveridge, John

      Cordie, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      286

      287

      MacArthur, Ian

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      McCrindle, R. A,

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      McLaren, Martin

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Stokes, John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Peel, John

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      McMaster, Stanley

      Percival, Ian

      Sutcliffe, John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Tapsell, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Pounder, Rafton

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

      Maddan, Martin

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Made), David

      Price, David (Eastfeigh)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Tebbit, Norman

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Marten, Neil

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

      Mather, Carol

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Maude, Angus

      Raison, Timothy

      Tilney, John

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Mawby, Ray

      Redmond, Robert

      Trew, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Vickers, Dame Joan

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

      Ridley, Ho. Nicholas

      Waddington, David

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Moate, Roger

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Walks, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Molyneaux, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Money, Ernie D.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wall, Patrick

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Rost, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Morro, Hector

      Royle, Anthony

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Warren, Kenneth

      More, Jasper

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Sandys, Rt. Hn, D.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Scott, Nicholas

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Mudd, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Whittlaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Murton, Oscar

      Sharples, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Heave, Airey

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Simeons, Charles

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Worsiey, Marcus

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Nott, John

      Soref, Harold

      Younger, Hn. George

      Onslow, Cranley

      Speed, Keith

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Spence, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Sproat, Iain

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Osborn, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 294, Noes 258.

      Division No. 128.]

      AYES

      [4.0 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

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

      Dean, Paul

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Buck, Antony

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Dixon, Piers

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Burden, F. A.

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Astor, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Atkins, Humphrey

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

      Drayson, G. B.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Carlisle, Mark

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Eden, Sir John

      Balniel, Lord

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Channon, Paul

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Batsford, Brian

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bell, Ronald

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Farr, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fell, Anthony

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Benyon, W.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fidler, Michael

      Bitten, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Blaker, Peter

      Cooke, Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Coombs, Derek

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Boscawen, Robert

      Cooper, A. E.

      Foster, Sir John

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Cordie, John

      Fowler, Norman

      Bowden, Andrew

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fox, Marcus

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Brain, Bernard

      Costain, A. P.

      Gardrer, Edward

      Bray, Ronald

      Critchley, Julian

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Brewis, John

      Crouch, David

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Brinton, Sir Tattoo

      Curran, Charles

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Brockiehank-Fowler,

      Christopher

      Dalkeith, Earl of Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Goodhew, Victor

      Bryan, Paul

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

      Gorst, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Gray, Hamish

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Rost, Peter

      Green, Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Royle, Anthony

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Grylls, Michael

      Maddan, Martin

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Madel, David

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Gurden, Harold

      Maginnis, John E.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Marten, Neil

      Sharples, Richard

      Halt-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mather, Carol

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

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maude, Angus

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Simeons, Charles

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mawby, Ray

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Soref, Harold

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Speed, Keith

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Spence, John

      Havers, Michael

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

      Sproat, Iain

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Stainton, Keith

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Moate, Roger

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Heseltine, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Hicks, Robert

      Money, Ernie

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Monro, Hector

      Stokes, John

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

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      More, Jasper

      Sutcliffe, John

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Tapsell, Peter

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Hardern, Peter

      Mudd, David

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

      Hornby, Richard

      Murton, Oscar

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Heave, Airey

      Tebbit, Norman

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Temple, John M.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Hunt, John

      Normanton, Tom

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Nott, John

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

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      James, David

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Tilney, John

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Jessel, Toby

      Osborn, John

      Trew, Peter

      Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport. N.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Jopling, Michael

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Peel, John

      Waddington, David

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Percival, Ian

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kilfedder, James

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Wall, Patrick

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Walters, Dennis

      Kirk, Peter

      Pounder, Rafton

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Kitson, Timothy

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Warren, Kenneth

      Knox, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lambton, Antony

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

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Lana, David

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Raison, Timothy

      Wilkinson, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

      Redmond, Robert

      Woodnutt, Mark

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

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Longden, Gilbert

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Loveridge, John

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Younger, Hn. George

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      MacArthur, Ian

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      McLaren, Martin

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshlre, W.)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cant, R. B.

      Allen, Scholefield

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Booth, Albert

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Ashley, Jack

      Bradley, Tom

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Atkinson, Norman

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

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Barnes, Michael

      Buchan, Norman

      Coleman, Donald

      Barnett, Joel

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Beaney, Alan

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      290

      291

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jenkins, Rt, Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pendry, Tom

      Crawshaw, Richard

      John, Brynmor

      Pentland, Norman

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Prescott, John

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

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

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Probert, Arthur

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rankin, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Judd, Frank

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Richard, Ivor

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lamond, James

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Deakins, Eric

      Latham, Arthur

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lawson, George

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

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rober, John

      Doig, Peter

      Leonard, Dick

      Rose, Paul B.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Driberg, Tom

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Dunn, James A.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Sillars, James

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Silverman, Julius

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McBride, Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Small, William

      Ellis, Tom

      McElhone, Frank

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      English, Michael

      McGuire, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Evans, Fred

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mackie, John

      Stallard, A. W.

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

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Steel, David

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Swindon

      Foley, Maurice

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Foot, Michael

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

      Strang, Gavin

      Ford, Ben

      Marks, Kenneth

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.

      Forrester, J, John

      Marsh, Rt. David

      Summerskill, Hn. Sir Dr. Shirley

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Swain, Thomas

      Calpern, Sir Myer

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Taverne, Dick

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mayhew, Christopher

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

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Meacher, Michael

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Golding, John

      Mellish, Rt Hn. Robert

      Tinn, James

      Gorden Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mendelson, John

      Tomney, Frank

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Torney, Tom

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Millen, Bruce

      Tuck. Raphael

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Varle, Eric G.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Molloy, William

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wallace, George

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Moyle, Roland

      Watkins, David

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Weiteman, David

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Murray, Ronald King

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hilton, W. S.

      Ogden, Eric

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Horam, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Malley, Brian

      Willey, Rt. Hn, Frederick

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Oram, Bert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Orbach, Maurice

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Orme, Stanley

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Pardoe, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

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

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 38

      RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION ON REFERENCE UNDER S. 35
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 260.

      Division No. 129.]

      AYES

      [4.12 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Alison, Mihael (Barkston Ash)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

      Kirk, Peter

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Emery, Peter

      Kitson, Timothy

      Astor, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Knox, David

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Farr, John

      Lambton, Antony

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fell, Anthony

      Lane, David

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Fidler, Michael

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Balniel, Lord

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Botsford, Brian

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fookes, Miss Janet

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

      Bell, Ronald

      Foster, Sir John

      Longden, Gilbert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Fowler, Norman

      Loveridge, John

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Fox, Marcus

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Benyon, W.

      Fry, Peter

      MacArthur, Ian

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gardner, Edward

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Biffen, John

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McLaren, Martin

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Blaker, Peter

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Goodhart, Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gorst, John

      Maddan, Martin

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn.

      John Gower, Raymond

      Mader, David

      Braine, Bernard

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Bray, Ronald

      Gray, Hamish

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Brewis, John

      Green, Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mather, Carol

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Angus

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Maudling, Rt. Her. Reginald

      Bruce,Gardyne, J.

      Gurden, Harold

      Mawby, Ray

      Bryan, Paul

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

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

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Moate, Roger

      Carlisle, Mark

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Molyneaux, James

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Money, Ernie

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Channon, Paul

      Havers, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      More, Jasper

      Chichester-Clark,

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hicks, Robert

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Clark William (Surrey, E.)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Carke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Murton, Oscar

      Clegg, Walter

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

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Neave, Alrey

      Cooke, Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Coombs, Derek

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hordern, Peter

      Normanton, Tom

      Cordle, John

      Hornby, Richard

      Noot, John

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Onslow, Cranley

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Costain, A. P.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Osborn, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Crouch, David

      Hunt, John

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Curran, Charles

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      James, David

      Peel, John

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Percival Ian

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Dean, Paul

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jopling, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dixon, Piers

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Pounder, Rafton

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kershaw, Anthony

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, James

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Eden, Sir, John

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Soref, Harold

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Raison, Timothy

      Speed, Keith

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Spence, John

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Redmond, Robert

      Sproat, Iain

      Waddington, David

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Stainton, Keith

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Wall, Patrick

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Walters, Dennis

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Stokes, John

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Warren, Kenneth

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Rogerts, Wyn (Conway)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Rost, Peter

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

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Royle, Anthony

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Wilkinson, John

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Tebbit, Norman

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Temple, John M.

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Worsley, Marcus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Sharpies, Richard

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

      Younger, Hn. George

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

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

      Shelton, Wiliam (Clapham)

      Tilney, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Simeons, Charles

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Mr.Paul Hawkins and

      Skeet, T.H.H.

      Trew, Peter

      Mr.Tim Fortesuce.

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

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Albu, Austen

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Allen Sholefield

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Arher, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Hunter, Adam

      Ashley, Jack

      Dempsey, James

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Ashton, Joe

      Doig, Peter

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dormand, J. D.

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

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Barnes, Michael

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jenkins, Rt. Hrt. Roy (Stechford)

      Barnett, Joel

      Driherg, Tom

      John, Brynmor

      Beaney, Alan

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Dunn, James A.

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

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Edelman, Maurice

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

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Booth, Albert

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Ellis, Tom

      Judd, Frank

      Bradley, Tom

      English, Michael

      Kaufman, Gerald

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

      Evans, Fred

      Kelley, Richard

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

      Fernyhough, E.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

      Lambie, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lamond, James

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

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Latham, Arthur

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lawson, George

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Foley, Maurice

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Foot, Michael

      Lee, Rt. Fin. Frederick

      Cant, R. B.

      Ford, Ben

      Leonard, Dick

      Carmichael, Neil

      Forrester, John

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Garrett, W. E.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Loughlin, Charles

      Cohen, Stanley

      Golding, John

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Coleman, Donald

      Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Conlan, Bernard

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McBride, Neil

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      McElhone, Frank

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      McGuire, Michael

      Cronin, John

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hardy, Peter

      Mackie, John

      Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mackintosh, John P.

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

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Hattersley, Roy

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Dalyelf, Tam

      Heffer, Eric S.

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hilton, W. S.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Horam, John

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

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Marks, Kenneth

      Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Marquand, David

      296

      297

      Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard

      Prescott, John

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Strang, Gavin

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Meacher, Michael

      Probert, Arthur

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Rankin, John

      Swain, Thomas

      Mendelson, John

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Taverne, Dick

      Mikardo, Ian

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

      Millan, Bruce

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Richard, Ifor

      Tinn, James

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tomney, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Torney, Tom

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

      Urwin, T. W.

      Morris, Charles R. (Opensaw)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Moyle, Roland

      Roper, John

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rose, Paul B.

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

      Murray, Ronald King

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Ogden, Eric

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Wallace, George

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Watkins, David

      O'Malley, Brian

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

      Weitzman, David

      Oram, Bert

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

      Wellbeloved, James

      Orbach, Maurice

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      White, Jams (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Sillars, James

      Whitlock, William

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Silverman, Julius

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Palmer, Arthur

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Small, William

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Pardoe, John

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Steel, David

      Pentland, Norman

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 39

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON REPORT UNDER S. 38
      The Chairman: We come now to Amendment No. 198, in page 28, line 24, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      Mr. Peter Archer: This Amendment, too, is destined to fall a victim to the guillotine. Like Danton, it deserved a better fate, but I suspect that it shares its tumbrel with many even worthier arguments. A new abbreviation has entered the parliamentary vocabulary: "U.P.N.M." — "under protest, not moved". Under protest, I refrain from moving this Amendment.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley): We have discussed at some length the principles and the proposals which are consummated in the Clause and which we on this side of the Committee have described throughout as the fictitious agreement Clause; because what
      298
      is proposed by means of this very tortuous procedure through Clauses 35–38 is that in the last analysis two parties are compelled to enter into a binding agreement against the clear intention of one of them. It must be the clear intention, otherwise there would be no need to go through this procedure and obtain an order of the court. In the event of the default of one of the parties, a substantial amount of compensation may fall to be paid.
      Because this is so plainly an outrageous intrusion into the principle of freedom of contract and an entirely novel post-election proposal, it is now at the eleventh hour being sold by the Secretary of State as an emergency procedure. This is what we have been told. That may well be the Secretary of State's intention; but if it was, why was this not included in that part of the Bill which is headed "Emergency Procedures" instead of it finding its way into this Part of the Bill?
      There is no guarantee, even if we are assured by the Secretary of State that it is intended to be used only in emergency, that once it is on the Statute Book that is how it will be used. In any event, it does not alter the principle to which this side of the Committee is entirely opposed and it does not detract from the

      299
      points which have been made in the debates on the other Clauses—that there will be a duty upon trade unionists and others who do not wish to enter into one of these fictitious agreements to police it and take quite drastic action against their own colleagues and members to enforce it.
      The interaction of C.I.R. and N.I.R.C. here is such that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in a very telling speech pointed out, the whole intention of the C.I.R. will be undermined. This has been shown, not merely by the action of Alf Allen and Will Paynter, but by the action only a day or two ago of a very eminent professor displaying his contempt for the C.I.R. in the new context of the N.I.R.C. One wonders just how long it will be before this is followed by other resignations on the part of those serving on the C.I.R.
      Also, as an appeal lies only on a question of law, it will not be possible to appeal from a decision of N.I.R.C.; because these are purely factual matters in these agreements.
      Above all, we on this side have emphasised throughout the continuous and the changing nature of procedure agreements and the fact that they rely ultimately on voluntary co-operation.
      The problem about procedures is not obtaining an agreement. The problem is seeing that an agreement is kept. This point is entirely missed by this Clause and by the preceding Clauses. We are concerned that we should obtain procedures which, when they are obtained, will be kept.
      Even when parties voluntarily agree to a procedure, it is virtually impossible to enforce this satisfactorily by law. Heaven knows what will occur when, as in this case, we have to enforce a fictitious agreement upon an unwilling, non-consenting party.
      It is not good enough for the Solicitor-General, as he did in last week's debate, to throw the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act at us as a precedent. That Act is not enforced in this way by a union policing its own members. It operates so as to bring the terms and conditions in an industry up to those which are voluntarily agreed by the
      300
      majority in that industry. It does not single out, as the Bill does, a particular employer for special treatment with regard to a case and problem particular to him. It is socially acceptable to industry, whereas the Clause, as we on this side continually point out, is not socially acceptable; and that which is not socially acceptable will ultimately be unenforceable.
      This is an alien concept—an idea perhaps more at home in the realm of the 1930s than in Britain in the 1970s. What the Government should be doing now is encouraging parties voluntarily to move forward to mutually acceptable procedure agreements. The Government should stop taking Donovan out of context in the way the Solicitor-General did. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to read again paragraphs 475 and 507 of the Donovan Report and put Donovan in its context instead of putting odd sentences that appear to support his views.
      The secret of harmony in industry is not enforceability but agreement in co-operation, and certainly not the enforcement of things that are not agreed between the two sides of industry.
      Finally, we arrive at these conclusions. First, even if procedure agreements are to be enforceable, as they are under the Bill, the Clause still remains utterly repugnant and unacceptable to this side of the Committee. Second, if procedure agreements are not to be enforceable, as they are under the Bill, the Clause still remains utterly repugnant and unacceptable to this side of the Committee. Second, if procedure agreements are not to be enforceable, the Clause would be an irrelevancy, anyway.
      Therefore, as this is a most provocative Clause which has caused dismay and bitterness throughout the trade union movement and among a great many academics who are concerned with the law of contract and a great many lawyers, and as it is already contributing in great measure to the upsurge of bitterness on the part of industry provoked by the Government, we on this side will oppose the Clause and will throughout the stages of the Bill oppose any attempt to enforce upon unwilling parties agreements into which they have not entered and which they cannot be expected to enforce against their own members.
      4.30 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Committee has heard the arguments on this part of the Bill rehearsed in many debates and I do not want to take up time on them now, but I must reply to the general assertion again repeated by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) denouncing the provisions when they are a fair and reasonable attempt to solve what is by common acknowledgment one of the greatest difficulties on the industrial relations scene.
      It may be said that these are provocative provisions. The fact is that other people—academics and practical people of all kinds—have urged us to extend the concept of enforceability to pre-existing agreements. They have said that we should disregard the difficulties or practical facts of particular cases and that we should make the provision for enforceability universally applicable. We have not done that. We have proceeded from the premise, as the Donovan Commission pointed out—and there is no room for argument about this—that most of our troubles spring from the inadequacy of procedure agreements and that the urgent need is to improve those agreements. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a voluntary basis."] Hon. Members say, "On a voluntary basis." But society has been waiting for management to get off its backside and for union leaders to improve procedures on a voluntary basis. Society asks, "How long must we wait before these improvements come about on a voluntary basis?"
      For that reason, successive Governments have become increasingly impressed with the urgency of trying to do something to accelerate progress towards the making of the kind of agreement which everyone regards as desirable. We are not making a general intrusion into freedom. We are designing selected, precise, case-by-case procedures which will exert pressure upon management and union leaders to improve procedures in given situations.
      The rôle of the C.I.R. will be to act as honest broker and conciliator in those cases which the court has identified as causing persistent trouble, as set out in Clause 35. It must be plain beyond argument that some kind of outside guidance, help and treatment is desirable. It is only
      302
      in that narrow situation that we arrived at the remedies proposed. It is beside the point and unimpressive for statements to be made about comparisons between these proposals and anything which may be found in Rome, ancient or modern. Society acknowledges that we have a problem. Everyone has acknowledged the necessity to try to raise standards, and this is a method carefully designed to achieve that end. It involves no contempt of the C.I.R., whose rôle will be to do what it can to bring about the necessary improvements.
      We believe that the general tide of progress must be voluntary but that the law can and should exert pressure in the direction of selected cases to try to achieve the result that society wants.
      Mr. James Sillars: The Solicitor-General keeps telling us about society's opinion. Can he say when society gave an opinion on this matter, seeing that the point at issue was never discussed as a matter of controversy between the main parties at the election?
      The Solicitor-General: The general conclusion that unofficial, unconstitutional strikes, either in breach of good procedures or, more frequently, because of the non-existence of good procedures, are at the heart of our troubles was endorsed by the Donovan Commission and by the last Government. This is the diagnosis and society has accepted the efforts of Labour and Conservative Governments to find a solution for it.
      The Donovan Report argued that when procedures had been improved we must look again at the case for selective enforceability on a case-by-case basis. We have waited for three years. There is not sufficient evidence that improvement is taking place voluntarily as fast as we should like and I am sure that society supports our attempts to create more quickly machinery for the improvement of agreements and, in these special selected cases, for such agreements to be enforced. I am sure that we all share that objective, and I commend the view that this is a legitimate and reasonably balanced way to try to achieve it.
      The parallel with the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act remains. If society wishes to see an improvement in the standard of procedures, it is not unreasonable to select a method of the kind

      303
      we suggest, just as in the context of the 1959 Act it was decided that it was sensible to bring the standards of collective bargains up to those generally agreed and, in those circumstances, to impose the conclusion upon selected firms. It is in that way, and not in any extravagant way, that I commend the Clause, already debated in principle, as one which the Committee should accept.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: It is important to point out that Clause 39 does two things. It imposes something upon people who, according to the Donovan Report, would be preferably left to their own devices. There is an element of imposition there, and I think wrongly there, from the beginning. The second element about which we complain is the method of imposition. This is where the paradox is highlighted at its most extreme. The cutting edge of the enforceability of collective agreements is in Clause 39.
      The paradox which highlights it is the fact that in Clause 35 there are examples of three kinds of procedure agreement which can lead to imposition by the Industrial Court. The first is when there is no procedure agreement. Whether one agrees with the Government's remedy or not, one can well understand that the diagnosis is probably relevant—that there will be trouble in industry if there is no procedure agreement. Similarly, one can understand the second example—the unsuitability of procedure agreements such as exist. One may acknowledge the diagnosis but not the cure.
      But one then comes to the third example which is illustrated in Clause 35(1)(b), namely, a procedure which is in existence, with both parties being satisfied with the agreement. The paradox is that, despite the fact that the parties have reached agreement and have a genuine contract, the Industrial Court can, under Clause 39, impose other terms of agreement upon them. It can not merely impose something on them; it can impose it on the fiction that it is an agreement. One is taking, not one, but two strange new steps and providing for a system of enforceability based on the fiction that the parties are agreed about the thing to be enforceable.
      304
      For that reason, among others, I think that the Clause is in error and goes in the wrong direction.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: We all want to make progress on the Bill, but this is one of the points in it at which a vital principle is involved. We cannot stress too strongly how iniquitous we find the principle in the Clause. We are totally at a loss to understand the complacency of hon. Members opposite, and particularly of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, because they must know that everyone connected with and experienced in the administration and operation of the law is deeply perturbed by the proposed new principle.
      Although, as the Solicitor-General said, we on this side of the Committee have ventilated our anxieties, we have had a completely contemptible answer from the Government. The Solicitor-General even justified the Government breaking their mandate on their industrial relations legislation by the fact that the Government had not done certain things which they had been urged to do. In particular, he said, "Look how liberal we are, because we have been urged to make pre-existing contracts legally enforceable. So all that we are doing is to make not only post-legislation contracts legally enforceable but to impose agreements that were never agreed." It reminds me of the girl who justified her illegitimate baby on the ground that it was not twins. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to quote in aid Donovan and the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. It is vital for us to place on record once and for all that in this, as in other matters, the Government are distorting Donovan and going in exactly the opposite direction to that which Donovan advocated.
      The Solicitor-General made great play on that section of Donovan which discusses what might be the rôle that law could play when the voluntary reforms had been carried through. He said that Donovan had quoted the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act as an analogy. Donovan did nothing of the kind. It was not quoting that Act as a justification for imposing procedure agreements here. In paragraph 511, Donovan was merely quoting this as an example of ad hoc application of the

      305
      law. But the Donovan attitude is made completely clear in paragraph 514 when, having discussed the sort of legal sanctions which might, if all else failed, be considered, and having discussed the possibility of the Secretary of State giving legal backing to particular procedure agreements, in exceptional situations, Donovan went on to say:
      "To proceed further, the Secretary of State would, on the basis of this consultation, have to be satisfied: (a) that the disputes procedure has been agreed between the employer and the union or unions concerned;"
      Even in this ultimate resort, where Donovan considered that it might be necessary at some distant future point, if voluntary reform had failed, to consider bringing in the law, they were only prepared to give legal backing to procedure agreements which had been negotiated by both sides.
      Therefore, once again the Government are wrong about Donovan. Once again, the Government are manufacturing a new and illiberal principle entirely of their own.
      It is not only lawyers who are outraged by this Clause. It is not only the trade unions who protest and will continue to protest that they are expected, under this group of Clauses, to police agreements which they did not voluntarily enter into—a new form of tyranny in our law—but the ordinary person in this country.
      Mr. John Page: Rubbish.
      Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has consoled himself very easily through earlier stages of our debate. I am not surprised that he is consoling himself very easily now.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: I was laughing at the fact that the right hon. Lady is saying that the whole country
      is against the Bill, and so on. In Yarmouth on Sunday we had a great march to protest against the Bill, which was advertised in the Press and elsewhere, and 45 people turned up.
      Mrs. Castle: I cannot answer for Yarmouth, particularly as it returns the hon. Gentleman, which I should have thought was a measure of the need for enlightenment in that area.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite are labouring under a very dangerous illusion if they think that there is not intense bitterness against the Bill, which will grow as the full implications of its provisions come home. The Government are coasting along at present by a widespread ignorance of the public as to what the Bill involves.
      I quote a letter which I received the other day, a second letter from someone who had written to me violently supporting the Bill and violently criticising what I had written about it. The tenor of the letter was to say how unreasonable I was being about this reasonable Government. Part of it reads as follows:
      "You of all people must know that the chances of an employer forcing any agreement on a reluctant Trade Union are negligible. The Unions are far too strong for this to be possible. In any event if a Union did not sign an agreement it would not be an agreement so how could a Union be mulcted for damages for breaking something which did not exist."
      In this Clause we are deciding that something shall exist which did not exist, and that it will have the full rigour of the law behind it. When that principle comes home to people, their reaction against the Bill and the Government will be still more bitter.
      Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 257.

      Division No. 130.]

      AYES

      [4.47 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Benyon, W.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Biffen, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Astor, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Bryan, Paul

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Blakey, Peter

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

      Awdry, Daniel

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Buck, Antony

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Body, Richard

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Burden, F. A.

      Balniel, Lord

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

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

      Batsford, Brian

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Braine, Bernard

      Carr, Rt Hn. Robert

      Bell, Ronald

      Bray, Ronald

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Brewis, John

      Channon, Paul

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Holland, Philip

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Peel, John

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hornby, Richard

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Cockeram, Eric

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Cooke, Robert

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Coombs, Derek

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hunt, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cordle, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Cormack, Patrick

      James, David

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Costain, A. P.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Critchley, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Timothy

      Crouch, David

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Curran, Charles

      Jopling, Michael

      Redmond, Robert

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Rees-Davies, W. F.

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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Dean, Paul

      Kilfedder, James

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Ridley, Ho. Nicholas

      Dixon, Piers

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kirk, Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Dykes, Hug

      Lambton, Antony

      Royle, Anthony

      Eden, Sir John

      Lane, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Legge-Bourke Sir Harry

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott, Nicholas

      Emery, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Eyre, Reginald

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

      Sharples, Richard

      Farr, John

      Lloyd Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

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

      Fell, Anthony

      Longden, Gilbert

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Loveridge, John

      Simeons, Charles

      Fidler, Michael

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead

      MacArthur, Ian

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

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Soref, Harold

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McLaren, Martin

      Speed, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Spence, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      McMaster, Stanley

      Sproat, Iain

      Foster, Sir John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fowler, Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Fry, Peter

      Maddan, Martin

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Madel, David

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Gardner, Edward

      Maginnis, John E.

      Stokes, John

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Marten, Neil

      Sutcliffe, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mather, Carol

      Tapsell, Peter

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

      Gorst, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Cower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Temple, John M.

      Green, Alan

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Grieve, Percy

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

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Molyneaux, James

      Tilney, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Money, Erie

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Trew, Peter

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mudd, David

      Waddington, David

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Murton, Oscar

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald Walker, Rt. Hn.

      Peter (Worcester)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neave, Airey

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Hastings, Stephen

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Wall, Patrick

      Havers, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Walters, Dennis

      Hawkins, Paul

      Normanton, Tom

      Ward Dame Irene

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nott, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Onslow, Cranley

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Heseltine, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hicks, Robert

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Osborn, John

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Hiley, Joseph

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      308

      309

      Wilkinson, John

      Worsley, Marcus

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Younger, Hn. George

      Mr. Victor Goodhew.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Albu, Austen

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Foley, Maurice

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Foot, Michael

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

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Ford, Ben

      Marquand, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Forrester, John

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Ashley, Jack

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Ashton, Joe

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Atkinson, Norman

      Garrett, W. E.

      Meachor, Michael

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Barnes, Michael

      Ginsburg, David

      Mendelson, John

      Barnett, Joel

      Golding, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Beaney, Alan

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Milian, Bruce

      Berm, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molloy, William

      Bishop, E. S.

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Booth, Albert

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Bradley, Tom

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Browns, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hart, Rt. Hn, Judith

      Oram, Bert

      Buchan, Norman

      Hattersley, Roy

      Orbach, Maurice

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Orme, Stanley

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Horam, John

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonskire, W.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cant, R, B.

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Carmichael, Neil

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pentland, Norman

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Coleman, Donald

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Prescott, John

      Concannon, J. D.

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

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Probert, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      John, Brynmor

      Rankin, John

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jonnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Cronin, John

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

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Richard, Ivor

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

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Judd, Frank

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

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kelley, Richard

      Roper, John

      Davies, G. Ellett (Rhondda, E.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lamond, James

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lawson, George

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

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dempsey, James

      Leonard, Dick

      Sillars, James

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Silverman, Julius

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Small, William

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lipton, Marcus

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Driberg, Tom

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Spearing, Nigel

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Spriggs, Lesile

      Dunn, James A.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Steel, David

      Badly, Alex

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Edelman, Maurice

      McBride, Neil

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Ellis, Tom

      McGuire, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      English, Michael

      Mackenzie Gregor

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mackie, John

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Swain, Thomas

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Taverne, Dick

      310

      311

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

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

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Tinn, James

      Wallace, George

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Tomney, Frank

      Watkins, David

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Torney, Tom

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Urwiny T. W.

      White, James (Glasgow, Po1lok)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Whitlock, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr. Kenneth Marks and

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

    Clause 40

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REPORTS AND ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 38 AND 39
      The Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) wish to move Amendment No. 199, in page 29, line 11, after "relates", insert "or that the provisions are not longer required"?
      Mr. Archer: Under protest, I refrain from moving it.
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Murray: It would be wrong to take up much time on this Clause because, obviously, it is consequential upon those that we have just considered. However, there is one important point that I want to raise, since it is the basis on which we on this side of the Committee oppose the Clause.
      It provides that, for a period of two years after a report has been made under the earlier provisions, the Industrial Court shall not entertain another application relating to the same circumstances. That is understandable. One would not want repeated applications to the court. It would not be helpful to industry to have that state of affairs.
      The Clause goes on to say in subsection (1) that the court shall not entertain a report in such circumstances
      "… unless the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons for entertaining the application within that period."
      That provision causes a great deal of disquiet on this side of the Committee, for two main reasons. The first is that the Bill gives no conception of what the "special reasons" are intended to com-
      312
      prise. We do not know what is contemplated for the Industrial Court and whether the reasons are to be legal or industrial reasons. If they are industrial reasons, the provision is yet another illustration of the point made repeatedly from this side of the Committee that the court being set up is an inappropriate body to adjudicate on matters coming before it.
      If the "Special reasons" are industrial, we question whether a court of law—even an unusual one like this—is appropriate to adjudicate upon such matters. If the "special reasons" are legal, one has to bear in mind that a hybrid procedure has been used to take the reference to the Industrial Court.
      The court is not a purely legal body. Before it gets a reference under Clauses 38 and 39 leading finally to a problem under Clause 40, matters are dealt with by those other hands mentioned in Clause 35 and by the Commission. Clause 35 makes it clear that, even at the level of the Commission, there will be a mixture of industrial knowledge and legal know-how which will make it important to know whether the "special reasons" are meant to be industrial or legal.
      5.0 p.m.
      Clause 37(3) deals with the Commission promoting and assisting discussions between the parties to the procedure agreement. It then stresses,
      "with a view to obtaining their agreement on new or revised provisions".
      Then follow the important words,
      "…so formulated as to be capable of having effect as a legally enforceable contract."
      Even at the Commission level one will clearly need. legal advice, so that whatever is forged from the negotiations or discussions can be legally enforced. It seems, therefore, most important that we should know what special reasons are contemplated.
      I stress again the opposition of this side of the Committee to a body of this kind adjudicating on industrial matters.

      313
      For these and other reasons we shall oppose the Clause.
      The Solicitor-General: I should like to give one word of explanation to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray). Of course, the main objective of the Clause is to prevent a series of repeated applications when a matter has already been considered, adjudicated upon, and reported by the Commission.
      The reference to special reasons is in the context of an application under Clause 35. The body which will have to consider whether special reasons exist is the industrial court. It will have to consider whether there are special reasons amongst those set out in Clause 35 which justify it, because of the persistence or recurrence of strife or disorder, making an additional reference to the Commission earlier than it would otherwise do so. The court will answer the questions, looking at the matter as a court and with the assistance of its industrial members. It will do that in the light of the legislation as a whole having regard to the factors which must be considered under Clause 35.
      Mr. Murray: I must press the hon. and learned Gentleman on this point. What the Solicitor-General said seems to indicate that, although we are not to have an inquiry into the circumstances which give rise to a reference under Clause 35 for two years, in considering special reasons we shall go back to those circumstances.
      The Solicitor-General: This is right, but in changed circumstances. The original application will have been made and referred to the Commission which will probably have spent some time considering it and will have reported; but, for some reason or another, neither side will have applied to get the report made part of an enforceable procedure. It may be that 12 months thereafter the conditions in the unit of employment
      have become so bad that, applying the tests set out in Clause 35, it is apparent that the maintenance of orderly industrial relations has been seriously impeded, and specially so, and that there have been substantial losses of work time. In those narrow circumstances I suggest that it is right that there should be this power in the court to conclude that there are special reasons. That is the way we approach the matter.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): The hon. and learned Gentleman has given one example of what might constitute special circumstances. To justify the inclusion of this provision one would think that there must be more than a single set of circumstances. Before leaving the subject, might I ask the Solicitor-General to give two or three examples of conditions which would be regarded as special circumstances justifying this special consideration by the court?
      The Solicitor-General: I have in fact, although in a compressed form, given more than one example. The phrase "special reasons" is not expressly defined. The question will have to be answered by the court in the light of the tests laid down in Clause 35.
      There are several alternative matters. There are alternatives in Clause 35(3)(a) and (b). If those conditions, which normally allow a Clause 35 application to be considered favourably by the court, arise in a special way so that the court concludes that there are special reasons for allowing this early reapplication, then it is able to do so.
      I point to two alternative matters, but there are more than two in Clause 35(3)(a) and (b). In that sense I commend the Clause as it stands to the Committee.
      Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 259.

      Division No. 131.]

      AYES

      [5.5 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Balniel, Lord

      Bitten, John

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Batsford, Brian

      Blaker, Peter

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Astor, John

      Bell, Ronald

      Body, Richard

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Benyon, W.

      Bowden, Andrew

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Brain, Bernard

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bray, Ronald

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper

      Brewis, John

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mudd, David

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Murton, Oscar

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Bryan, Paul

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neave, Airey

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

      Havers, Michael

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Buck, Antony

      Hawkins, Paul

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Normanton, Tom

      Burden, F. A.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nott, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hicks, Robert

      Onsow, Cranley

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

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hiley, Joseph

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

      Osborn, John

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Channon, Paul

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hordern, Peter

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hornby, Richard

      Peel, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Percival, Ian

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Clegg, Walter

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hunt, John

      Pounder, Rafton

      Cooke, Robert

      Hutchinson, Michael Clark

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Coombs, Derek

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cooper,

      A. E. James, David

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

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Costain, A. P.

      Jessel, Toby

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Critchley, Julian

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Raison, Timothy

      Crouch, David

      Jopling, Michael

      Ramsden, Rt. Hon., James

      Crowder, F. P.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Redmond, Robert

      Curran, Charles

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Dean, Paul

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dixon, Piers

      Kirk, Peter

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kitson, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Knox, David

      Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Lambton, Antony

      Rost, Peter

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Lane, David

      Royle, Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Eden, Sir John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott, Nicholas

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

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Emery, Peter

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

      Sharples, Richard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Longden, Gilbert

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

      Farr, John

      Loveridge, John

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fell, Anthony

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Simeons, Charles

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      MacArthur, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fidler, Michael

      McCrindle, R. A.

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

      Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McLaren, Martin

      Soref, Harold

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Speed, Keith

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McMaster, Stanley

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Spence, John

      Foster, Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Sproat, lain

      Fowler, Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fox, Marcus

      Maddan, Martin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fry, Peter

      Madel, David

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maginnis, John E.

      Stodart,Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Gardner, Edward

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Marten, Neil

      Stokes, John

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mather, Carol

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maude, Angus

      Sutcliffe, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Tapsell, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

      Gower, Raymond

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Green, Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Temple, John M.

      Grieve, Percy

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

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

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

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Molyneaux, James

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gurden, Harold

      Money, Ernie

      Tilney, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Trew, Peter

      316

      317

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Walters, Dennis

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Worsley, Marcus

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Waddington, David

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mr. Victor Goodhew and

      Wall, Patrick

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Fernyhough, E.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Albu, Austen

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

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Allen, Scholefieid

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McBride, Neil

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Foley, Maurice

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ashley, Jack

      Foot, Michael

      McElhone, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael

      Atkinson, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mackie, John

      Barnes, Michael

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Barnett, Joel

      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

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Bishop, E. S.

      Ginsburg, David

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Golding, John

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

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Marquand, David

      Booth, Albert

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Bradley, Tom

      Grant John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mayhew, Christopher

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

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mendelson, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Millan, Bruce

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Harper, Joseph

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Milne, Edward (Biyth)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Molloy, William

      Cant, R. B.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Carmichael, Nell

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Abeavon)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Huckfield, Lesile

      Ogden, Eric

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oram, Bert

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Corbel, Mrs. Freda

      Hunter, Adam

      Orme, Stanley

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Irvine,RtHn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

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

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

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pardoe, John

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      John Brynmor

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Deakins, Eric

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Prescott, John

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Dempsey, James

      Judd, Frank

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Doig, Peter

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Probert, Arthur

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kelley, Richard

      Rankin, John

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Driberg, Tom

      Lamond, James

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Latham, Arthur

      Richard, Ivor

      Dunn, James A.

      Lawson, George

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Arthur (w. Ham, N.)

      Roper, John

      Ellis, Tom

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rose, Paul B.

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Evans, Fred

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      318

      319

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Wallace, George

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

      Strang, Gavin

      Watkins, David

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

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Swain, Thomas

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Sillars, James

      Taverne, Dick

      Whitlock, William

      Silverman, Julius

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

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Small, William

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Tomney, Frank

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Steel, David

      Variey, Eric G.

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

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

      Mr. Kenneth Marks and

      Stoudart, David (Swindon)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 41

      DEFINITIONS RELATING TO BARGAINING STRUCTURE
      The Deputy Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 696, in page 29, line 25, leave out from second 'rights' to the end of line 26.
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Under protest, I do not move this Amendment.
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Deputy Chairman: I should remind the Committee that it would be appropriate to discuss with Clause 41 new Clause No. 15, headed "Reference to Commission of request by trade union for recognition",
      .—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that an employer or group of associated employers has not complied with a request for recognition made by or on behalf of one or more trade unions, or has failed to honour recognition previously given and has been requested to restore that recognition, the Secretary of State may, after complying with subsection (3) of this section, refer that request to the Commission if he is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so.
      (2) Any such request for recognition as is mentioned in the preceding subsection—

      (a) may be a request for recognition either in respect of all the employees of the employer or group of employers or in respect only of one or more descriptions of those employees, and

      (b) whether it relates to all those employees or only to one or more descriptions of them, may a request either for recognition generally or for recognition in respect of one or more particular matters and (in either case) may be a request for recognition at all levels (whether national, regional or local) or for recognition at one or more such levels.

      320
      (3) Before referring any request to the Commission under this section, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the proposal—

      (a) to the employer (or, if more than one, to each of the employers) to whom the request was made and to the trade union or trade unions by or on behalf of which it was made, and

      (b) to the General Council and the Confederation; and, if any of them offer any advice with respect to the proposal, shall take that advice into consideration.

      (4) Where a request for recognition is referred to the Commission in accordance with subsection (1) of this section the Commission shall enquire into the request and shall report to the Secretary of State along with any recommendation which they may wish to make, and on such a report being made to him, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, order the employer or employers to whom the request was made to recognise the trade union or trade unions to the extent specified in the order; and where such an order has been made by the Secretary of State the recognition prescribed in the order shall be an implied term of every contract of employment between the employer or employers and any employee for whose benefit that recognition is intended.
      (5) For the purpose of assisting the Commission in their examination of any question referred to them under this section the Commission may, if they think fit, take one or more ballots of employees appearing to the Commission to be employees to whom the question directly relates and the Commission shall take account of the results of any such ballot in arriving at their conclusions on that question.
      (6) In this section any reference to the recognition of a trade union by an employer shall be so construed as to include the taking by the employer of all such action in connection with the carrying on of relevant negotiations with the trade union as might reasonably be expected to be taken by an employer ready and willing to carry on such negotiations; and any reference to recognising a trade union to any particular extent shall be construed accordingly.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In opposing Clause 41 and the subsequent Clauses dependent upon it, we are seeking to replace it with new Clause 15. Clause 41 introduces, for the first time in British industrial relations, the

      321
      concept of the bargaining agency. Without pre-empting the debate on following Clauses, it is essential to say something about what is involved here.
      An application can be made to the Industrial Court by one or more trade unions, an employer or the Secretary of State. It is interesting and significant that, whereas a trade union can apply only for a trade union or a joint panel of unions to be the sole bargaining agent, an employer or the Secretary of State may apply for any organisation of workers. In practice, "any organisation of workers" could mean an unregistered trade union, but it could equally mean that an employer or the Secretary of State could apply for a house union, a company union or a similar organisation, which could seriously affect the bona fide union. I suspect that right hon. Gentlemen opposite intend that it should do just that.
      The Industrial Court can refer the question to the C.I.R. which in turn must transmit its proposals to the Industrial Court, and so on. From the moment that the application is made—this can be used by employers—it is unlawful for a genuine union to take industrial action about recognition. The situation can be made worse, if what we hear is true, because the Government replied to a question in another place that there will be a special register of professional associations which can have access to the Industrial Court to seek exclusive recognition. Lord Windlesham said in the other place, in reply to a Question from Lord Janner:
      "… a number of professional associations have made representations to the Government, and after consideration of those representations it has been decided to introduce an Amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill in another place which will enable professional associations which have a negotiating function to be placed on a special register and thereby benefit from all the privileges accorded to trade unions by the Bill. The Charity Commissioners may feel that it would be desirable to wait and see in what form the legislation goes on the Statute Book before deciding about the position of those professional associations which are registered as charities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lord, 28th January, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 1061.]
      My hon. Friends and I have not yet seen the Amendment, but it is very interesting that this point was made in the other place. We are entitled to know precisely what is the position. If there is to be a
      322
      special register which allows the professional associations to have the rights or privileges accorded to trade unions, that is tantamount to making trade unionism unlawful for many workers. It will cause a great deal of bitterness amongst trade unions, especially those which are trying to organise amongst the professional groups.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that this makes a nonsense of the closed shop argument advanced by the Government?
      Mr. Heffer: I certainly agree. The Government must tell us precisely what the position is.
      If under this procedure only one union is granted recognition as a bargaining unit, members of other unions will have to resign and join the union recommended by the C.I.R. It is all very well for Ministers to say, as they did the other day, that workers can belong to two unions, but that is not a recognised principle within the trade union movement. A man belongs to one union or the other. The Government are creating a new situation. If men did not join the union that is accepted as the sole bargaining agency, they would become non-unionists. Under those circumstances, the Commission on Industrial Relations, under the Bill, could overturn a T.U.C. disputes committee decision based on the Bridlington principle No. 5.
      Hon. Members opposite should understand precisely what is involved. They are saying that they want to strengthen trade union authority and the responsible trade unionists. Apart from anything else, the lengthy procedures outlined in the Clause are in no way conducive to speedy solutions to problems of recognition and so on. They will not help the trade unions involved. It is suggested that we could have a ballot on top of the reference from the Industrial Relations Court to the C.I.R., and then a ballot, back again to the Industrial Relations Court, and so on. The whole structure is incredibly complicated and totally unnecessary. It is quite clear that the complicated procedure proposed by the Government would not give any real aid to the unions which are trying to gain recognition from reactionary employers.

      323
      It would create break-away unions. Workers who are temporarily in dispute with their union could seek a reference to the C.I.R. In the United States there are multitudinous groups of unions as bargaining agencies all over the country, not only in the same industry but often in the same towns and within the same companies. This creates utter confusion in the trade union movement.
      The Clause is a recipe for industrial chaos and will lead to Dutch auctions of unions competing with one another for membership. That is not industrial common sense. Union rivalry will develop where it does not exist; unions which have lived together for years, which have refused to poach from each other and have abided by the Bridlington Agreement, could begin to score off each other. If that is the Government's intention, I do not understand how they can say at the same time that they believe in responsible trade unionism. This is the very opposite of responsible trade unionism. It could lead to the sort of bitterness and rivalry that exists among certain American trade unions, with the Teamsters trying to score off the U.A.W., the U.A.W. trying to score off the electrical workers, and so on. Perhaps that is what the Government want. Perhaps they want the trade unions to be divided in that way, but it is not acceptable to the trade union movement.
      The Bridlington Agreement has helped not only the unions but the employers. In the past 30 years the T.U.C. has dealt successfully with more than 1,000 interunion disputes through the application of the Agreement. Under the Government's proposals we could become involved in Dutch auctions, the very opposite of solving the problems as they are now solved under the Bridlington Agreement.
      The C.I.R. established by my right hon. Friend, which has done a first-class job, would lose its rôle of persuasion and promoting good practice. It would become very much the instrument of the Industrial Relations Court, rather than itself sorting out the problems. In Clause 43(3) we find that the specifications will be laid down by the Court and not the C.I.R. This again indicates a subordination of the C.I.R.
      324
      5.30 p.m.
      A further point that requires making is that, after an application under Clause 51(1), after an order of the National Industrial Relations Court under Clause 51(2), (3), (4) or (6), and after any recommendation of the C.I.R. under Clause 51(5), an unfair industrial practice can apply, and can apply for two years. I stress again that, if a house union were to be recommended by the C.I.R., a genuine bona fide trade union could not obtain recognition for at least two years. For this and many other reasons which I have not been able to bring out for lack of time, we reject Clause 41 and wish to put new Clause 15 in its place.
      New Clause 15 would, firstly, give the Secretary of State a right, after consultations with the employers and the trade unions—that is, with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.—to refer a case of recognition to the C.I.R. I stress that it is recognition that is involved. This is a very important point indeed. Secondly, the recognition issued could be for one or more unions. Thirdly, after the C.I.R. had studied the situation and reported to the Secretary of State, then, and only then, he could issue an order to the employer to recognise the union or unions. This is in line with the proposals made in my right hon. Friend's Bill, which unfortunately we did not pass because of the election. It is in line with the fact that the T.U.C. would, of course, be involved at all stages, as would the employers' organisations. We also suggest in new Clause 15 that there could be a ballot of workers and that this would have to be taken into account by the C.I.R. when arriving at its conclusion.
      But these proposals do not follow those of the Government, which are all within the legal framework laid down on the basis of the Industrial Relations Court. We believe that our proposals are a constructive alternative to those being put forward by the Government. We recognise that there are problems of recognition. That is clear. We know that certain employers refuse to accept the elementary principle in this modern age that the trade union movement should be recognised, that unions should be recognised as a basis for proper voluntarily negotiated collective agreements. We can give example after

      325
      example of employers who refuse recognition to the trade union movement. There was a bitter example in Stockport, where a gigantic battle was waged for two years in order to gain trade union recognition. So we accept the fact that there are problems of recognition and that some employers are intransigent and seek to avoid recognition of trade unions.
      In our proposals, we equally seek to avoid the need for workers in this modern age to take strike action in order to receive trade union recognition. We believe that, in these modern days, it is totally unnecessary that they should have to do so, and that is why we put forward our proposals. What we are seeking to do is to maintain the important voluntary principle, which is in contrast with the complicated legal framework which the Government propose. Our proposals seek to strengthen and improve the work of the C.I.R., and that again is entirely different from the Government's proposals, hemmed in as they are by the Bill's legal framework. Therefore I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Clause 41, and equally—I am not sure whether we can do so under the rules of the House—to vote for new Clause 15 if we have the opportunity, because it is a sensible, sound and constructive alternative to the Government's proposals.
      Mr. David Mitchell: I find myself in a good deal of agreement with a number of things said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). I want to raise a number of points which have emerged from what has been said. This takes us back to Clause 11 (3), which says that certain things follows in relation to an agency shop if a trade union is recognised by the employer as having negotiating rights. In Clause 41, we find that "negotiating rights"
      "… means rights, recognised by an employer or by two or more associated employers, to participate, on behalf of all or some of the employees …"
      in regard to collective agreements. What we do not have in the Bill is any means by which one can ensure that an employer will recognise. Therefore it seems to me, both in relation to the agency shop, where this is one of the gateways which have to be crossed, and in relation to the recognition of a sole bargaining agent,
      326
      there is a necessity to secure the right for recognition.
      I concur in the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not be embarrassed by that. I have had in my constituency a case in an engineering works where the union claimed that a majority of the employees wished it to represent them. The employers took the view that this was not a correct assessment of the situation and refused to recognise the union. The only course open to the union was to call a strike in order to secure recognition. I agree that in this day and age we should be more civilised about this.
      In our original "Fair Deal at Work" proposals, we talked about providing a basis for a vote to decide whether a union should have negotiating rights. I recognise that the Bill, in relation to the sole bargaining agent, is designed to deal with the conflict situation between two unions, and I support its proposals in that connection. But where in the Bill is there power for a union to call for a ballot to show an employer that it has a majority of workers in the plant? I am thinking of the situation in which there is no conflict as to which union should be recognised and where there is no need to go to the C.I.R. for the boundaries to be drawn and no need to go to the Industrial Court. I am considering a situation in which there is clear indication that the majority of the employees support a certain union and want it to represent them and which should, therefore, be given recognition by the employer.
      Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but surely all the arguments, from both sides of the Committee, are directed to the proposals on the recognition of sole bargaining agent, which is Clause 42. I understood that we were taking Clause 41 which relates to bargaining structure.
      The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Chair will watch order as best it can.
      Mr. Mitchell: Further to the point of order. I was about to sit down but I must say that my hon. Friend will have noticed that among the things listed as definitions here is the definition of negotiating rights. The point that I am

      327
      making is that there is insufficient basis for securing those outlined in this Clause.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I hope that you will guide me as to what is and what is not in order, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
      I want to support the new Clause and to comment on those parts of the Bill of which Clause 41 forms an essential ingredient. These are not only the most revolutionary, perhaps I should say counter-revolutionary, parts in the Bill, but they are also revolutionary in English law. We knew before the Bill was presented that it would contain provisions to make collective agreements legally binding. However, until the Bill appeared, I think all of us had assumed that those agreements were to be agreements to which the parties, through trade unions, had assented. Nothing in either the Conservative Party manifesto or, "Fair Deal at Work" in any way indicated that we should be getting collective bargaining agreements made by sole bargaining agents who had been appointed under the provisions of the Clauses we are now considering and which would be binding on members of trade unions who had had no part in the negotiation of those agreements.
      Clauses 41 to 50 provide for an application to be made by either a trade union or an employer for the appointment of a sole bargaining agent. The court must refer that to the Commission and the matter can then be settled at any stage by agreement. When the Commission reports back to the court it has to give notice to those who would be affected by it. That is under Clause 44(2).
      There is no provision in the Bill for any notice to be given to the unions whose members are likely to be affected, even in a situation in which an employer is pressing either for a staff association, a tame company union, to be appointed as the sole bargaining agent or in which an application is made by an employer or by a trade union which has made a satisfactory bargain for its own members with the employer, for that union to be appointed as sole bargaining agent. There is no provision in the Bill which would prevent a union representing 51 per cent. of the employees in a firm or industry
      328
      being appointed as the sole bargaining agent.
      There is not even any duty on the Commission to make sure that the unions whose members are likely to be affected would be given notice of the proposal. The Commission is required to satisfy itself that any proposal put forward would promote a satisfactory and lasting settlement, but there is no provision for the unions to be given any notice, let alone for them to make representations to the Commission or the court.
      It may be extravagant to suppose that the Commission would make a recommendation to the court when it knows that 60 per cent. of the employees affected belong to one union and 40 per cent. to another, but there are many more marginal situations in which, without greater protection than we have in the Bill as it stands, there is a great danger of the Commission making a recommendation to the court which could produce an absolutely disastrous situation. There could be a situation in which one union has a minority of members with interests quite different from those of the majority and that minority union interest could be wholly overridden by the provisions of the Bill.
      5.45 p.m.
      What is of even greater importance is not so much the majority opinion putting itself forward or being put forward but the employer putting forward a staff association, a tame company union. We have had situations, for example, in the banks, in which a staff association was for a long time the major "union". Almost any retail organisation in which the branches are split up throughout the country carries the danger of having a staff association being promoted within it as a sole bargaining agent. It will be almost impossible, once a sole bargaining agent has been established—without the Commission even having heard the representations which the unions would have sought to make—to upset that arrangement and the staff association will remain the bargaining agent until the signatures of 20 per cent. of the, often very widely scattered, employees affected can be collected.
      Mr. A. E. Cooper: On a point of order. May I reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the

      329
      Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). It seems to me, listening to the debate and reading Clause 15, that it should be taken in conjunction with Clause 42. Clause 41 is simply a definition Clause with an interpretation of various parts. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are debating are the terms laid down in Clause 42 and in new Clause 15.
      The Deputy Chairman: The Committee will be aware that new Clause 15 is being taken with the Motion that Clause 41 stand part of the Bill, and it is in order to discuss them.
      Mr. Cooper: Then may we take it that we can discuss Clause 42 in the same context, because that is what is happening?
      The Deputy Chairman: We are at present discussing Clause 41 with new Clause 15, and I think that we should be wise to adhere to that.
      Mr. Raymond Gower: Further to that point of order. This is a difficult matter. The Chair has referred to the new Clause. It is not compatible with the interpretation Clause in the Bill. If that new Clause were inserted in place of the interpretation Clause it would make a nonsense of this part of the Bill. What my hon. Friends have said is prefectly right. I appreciate that the Chair has to make the selection, but in this case the selection as it is, without some reference to the next Clause, would make a nonsense of the Bill.
      The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Chair has made the selection and I have called that selection, which is Clause 41, with which new Clause 15 can be discussed. This is what we should adhere to.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The provisions introduced by new Clause 15 are infinitely superior to those already in the Bill. Those existing provisions, particularly to do with the sole bargaining agent mean that there are loopholes which provide opportunities for enormous abuses. Many of my hon. Friends have extensive experience in situations in which unionism is strong. Although I have some experience of such situations, I have even more experience of situations in which the trade unions are weak and seeking to establish themselves.
      330
      My fear is that, as these provisions stand the trade unions will find it almost impossible to function properly in situations where unions are not yet established. A sole bargaining agent will have been appointed, either by the employer having made a bargain favourable to himself with a trade union, which is favourable only to the members of that union, to the exclusion of other workers, or to the exclusion of the members of unions representing workers likely to be affected at a later stage or to the exclusion of members belonging to a more aggressive union which might seek to recruit members in that industry. This is a real problem in the areas in which unionism is very weak and wage levels low.
      An employer on a construction site might make a bargain at an early stage of the job and appoint one particular union or his own staff association as sole bargaining agent. At that time he has a relatively small number of employees and he can get their approval or, if necessary, buy their approval, to the appointment of that union or association as sole bargaining agent. Once that union is so established, the tradesmen and craftsmen who come on to the site later, and whose unions will not even have been given the opportunity of making representations when the Commission is considering whether to appoint a bargaining agent, will have no opportunity to make their case. An even graver situation arises with banks and retail trade distribution.
      Whatever may happen in the votes which we shall be taking later, I hope that the Government will reconsider those parts of the Bill which leave so many loopholes for abuse and make it possible for agreements to be made for sole bargaining agents to be appointed when the unions and men most likely to be affected are not even informed of them. The entire procedure envisaged in these Clauses is so unsatisfactory that I hope that the Committee will support new Clause 15.
      The Solicitor-General: The Committee at least approaches the debate on these two matters—the provisions set out in Clause 41 and the alternative proposals in new Clause 15—with an important declaration of principle from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He told the Committee that he

      331
      recognises that, in pursuit of recognition disputes, strike action is totally unnecessary.
      Mr. Iremonger: I am sorry to press my right hon. and learned Friend, but surely new Clause 15 cannot be an alternative to Clause 41. It is an alternative to Clause 42.
      Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I have just given way, and I am rising to deal with the point put by my hon. Friend—if I may be allowed to deal with one at a time. My hon. Friend expressed an anxiety which I think is on a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Chairman, the concepts embodied in Clause 41 are fundamental to the Clauses which follow it. There are definitions of "bargaining unit", "negotiating rights", "sole bargaining agent", and so on. They are to be contrasted with the provisions contained in new Clause 15. I have no doubt that, as a matter of order, the provisions contained in new Clause 15 could have been set alongside one of several debates on the Clauses in this Part of the Bill, but the Committee may feel—and I am probably entirely out of order in saying this—that it is not an inconvenient context in which to discuss the alternative approaches, so as to avoid the frequent repetition of the same point on successive Clauses. That is the spirit in which I am approaching it, and I hope that I am not going out of order in doing so.
      Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I will just repeat the point and provoke the hon. Gentleman once again, if I have to. I was saying that the hon. Member for Walton had made an important statement when he said that in recognition disputes strike action is—and I utter what he said in parenthesis—or ought to be—totally unnecessary.
      Mr. Heffer: What I said was that strikes ought not to be necessary in this modern day and age. I did not say that trade unions should not take strike action in present circumstances to force recognition. I was saying that we should devise a system, as was envisaged in my right hon. Friend's Bill, for forcing recog-
      332
      nition upon recalcitrant, reactionary employers without it being necessary for workers to take strike action.
      The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to misunderstand or misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but we are here, almost for the first time, plainly on important common ground. There are certain types of strike in certain situations which ought not in a modern society to be necessary if society formulates an alternative machinery for the resolution of the underlying disputes. That is precisely what this legislation is about—the creation of the alternative machinery which the hon. Gentleman said was to be found in the right hon. Lady's Bill for the resolution of these matters.
      This is the point of principle which we make. We seek only to identify certain types of industrial action as unfair where we are striving to produce alternative machinery for the resolution of those disputes. I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Walton in at least identifying the good sense of the principle. We may disagree on how we apply it, but we have had from him an important acknowledgment of principle.
      The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is necessary to provide machinery of this kind—and I gladly accept his words. we can all think of examples—to compel recalcitrant employers who unreasonably fail to recognise trade unions. I mince no words and make no important concession in acknowledging, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, that such situations exist. Fine —that is what our machinery is about.
      Mr. Stanley Orme Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West) rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I will just make the second part of my point and then give way. It is unrealistic to suppose that disputes and recognition strikes arise solely because of confrontations and disputes between unions seeking recognition and recalcitrant employers. The hon. Member spoke about the way in which disputations arise between the Teamsters and the Union of Automobile Workers in the United States. Fair enough. It may well be easy, but it is quite unrealistic, to shut our eyes to the

      333
      fact that inter-union recognition disputes are an alternative and important cause of trouble in this country as well.
      Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
      Mr. Orme: I am following the argument which the Solicitor-General is making, but he should acknowledge that, whilst the trade unions do not want to take industrial action on recognition, they have never asked for the law to be brought in to enable them to achieve recognition. They have asked for better agreements and for employers to have a better understanding. We have eleven million trade unionists in this country, without the law, and we do not need it now.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that trade unions have never asked for the law to be brought in in this way. I do not want to weary the House with examples, but in a number of cases which have been heard before the existing Industrial Court unions have sought, understandably and rightly, to require employers—who are not conforming to an industry-wide agreement because the industry-wide agreement provides for recognition—to recognise them. The existing machinery of the Industrial Court does not provide for it. Unions have struggled—I know, I have seen them—to use the 1959 Act procedure as a means of securing recognition. They have not adequate means of securing recognition, hence they refer the matter to the Industrial Court. It is for that reason we are introducing—
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the situation in the United States of America and I pointed to the rivalry which exists between certain unions there. Nobody would deny that even here there are arguments between unions which at the moment are overwhelmingly dealt with by the Trades Union Congress disputes machinery, which solves those problems within the context of the trade union movement. But what the Government proposes to do is to take this outside the trade union machinery, and the establishment of sole bargaining agents would
      334
      lead to and develop rivalry between unions where in the past such rivalry has not existed. In fact, in the United States rivalry between unions has developed on a much greater scale because of the type of legislation which the hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has made those points in his own contribution and I will deal with them. The important point is that this machinery does not drive people away, any more than does the machinery in new Clause 15, from making use of the existing important voluntary T.U.C. interunion disputes machinery. To take an example from the other side of the Atlantic, one of the provisions in the original 1947 Taft-Hartley legislation was designed to prevent demarcation disputes. One of the first things that happened when that legislation first came on to the Statute Book was a substantial number of applications before the National Labour Relations Board for the resolution of those demarcation disputes.
      One of the consequences that followed the existence of the statutory machinery was the establishment of a new body covering specifically the construction industry. This body was representative on a voluntary basis of both sides. It was spurred on by the existence of the statutory machinery and voluntarily resolved dispute after dispute. This is the way in which we visualise the law providing a safety valve machinery in situations such as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges are without remedy at the moment, but in no sense obstructing the actions of existing voluntary bodies.
      Mr. Heffer: We have already done it.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sitting position and I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate. To answer his point, it is no use saying on the one hand, "We have already done it" and on the other hand asserting that there is here a situation in which people resort to strike action and society ought to provide an alternative machinery.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman should get this matter clear. It arises from the fact that he does not know what has already happened. In the construction industry the trade unions

      335
      have already established machinery for dealing with demarcation disputes. This has already been done on a voluntary basis without the law being introduced. Furthermore, this has been done, apart from the T.U.C. Bridlington agreement, in regard to inter-union rivalry, poaching and so on.
      The Solicitor-General: I acknowledged that much is being done, but the fact remains that disputes of this kind are far from unique or unknown in our society. If one looks at the original provisions of "In Place of Strife", it rightly said that the right of a union to secure recognition from a recalcitrant employer was recognised; but the Report stated in paragraph 60:
      "Questions of conflict for recognition between rival unions present greater difficulties … disputes over recognition between powerful unions can cause widespread disruption and, unless peaceful methods of finding a solution can be evolved, such disputes will be settled on the basis of which union or group of unions can do, or threaten to do, the greatest damage to the economy. The Government believes that this is intolerable in a modern society. …"
      We believe it to be equally intolerable for a recalcitrant employer to decline recognition to a union which is strongly supported and for unions to fight it out in this way. We believe it understandable that that kind of strike arises and persists so long as society fails to provide an alternative remedy. That is what we are suggesting.
      To come back to the closing part of this paragraph in the document "In Place of Strife", it reads, at the end:
      "The employer would then be liable to a financial penalty if he refused to recognise the union or unions which the C.I.R. recommended should be recognised, or recognised one against which it had recommended."
      That is the second part of the package.
      "A union which used coercive action to obstruct the implementation of the C.I.R.'s recommendations would also be liable to a financial penalty."
      The right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends are entitled to say that they have changed their minds. Indeed, some hon. Members opposite are entitled to say, "We have never agreed with our right hon. Friend anyway." But we are entitled to say that in this paragraph a sensible diagnosis was being made and that it is consistent with the duty of the present Government to follow that diag-
      336
      nosis and to produce the solutions we have here. It is unrealistic for hon. Members to say—[Interruption.]
      Mrs. Castle: Leaving aside the argument whether my hon. Friends ever agreed with the policy or whether we have changed our minds, will the hon. and learned Gentleman not admit that an integral part of "In Place of Strife" was that the T.U.C. was to have a statutory right for a reasonable period in which to solve the problem first? In other words, there was to be built into the statutory provisions the recognition that the T.U.C. was the ideal body to settle these matters and that the law ought to provide for that.
      The Solicitor-General: But the law does not in any case stand in the way of the T.U.C, doing that.
      Mrs. Castle: Of course it does.
      The Solicitor-General: The machinery proposed in the Bill does no such thing. There is nothing in any of the provisions to stop the T.U.C. and every responsible trade unionist, as they see this Bill marching its way to the Statute Book, or indeed, arriving on the Statute Book, saying, "We do not regard the intervention of the law as necessary on this matter; we will ensure that our own machinery will resolve these matters."
      Mrs. Castle: This is a vital point and I should like to come back upon it. It is one thing to say, "Let the T.U.C. strengthen its machinery and then nobody will want to use the law." It is a different thing to say that nobody shall be allowed to use the law until the T.U.C. has first by law been given the right to deal with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong to say that is compatible with his provisions which, after these Clauses are passed, will give the right to one or more trade union or an employer, or the Secretary of State, to make application and set the machinery in motion regardless of what the T.U.C. is doing.
      The Solicitor-General: I fully accept the right hon. Lady's point. It is an entirely different thing to say that nobody may invoke the machinery unless and until the T.U.C. has intervened. But that is to exclude from access to this important new procedure society as a whole, represented by the Secretary of

      337
      State, and employers and individuals who are being grievously damaged. I do not believe, if we wish to encourage voluntary action by the T.U.C., that it is right to give that body or any other a right of veto over the sensible procedures set out in these provisions.
      Mrs. Castle: Will the Solicitor-General admit that there is a fundamental difference in principle between his law and "In Place of Strife"?
      The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge that there is certainly a difference.
      Mrs. Castle: Now we have it. Now we have got rid of all the nonsense.
      The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady seeks to gain too much from my answer on that point. I have gone on wearily but accurately drawing attention to the similarities between proposals and those put forward by the right hon. Lady. The fact that the right hon. Lady has moved away from her original prescription is something inescapably and indelibly imprinted on the minds of the Committee, as on the mind of the country; and there will be no getting away from that.
      Coming now to the general argument advanced by the hon. Member he says that all things are to be solved entirely by the voluntary procedure. Some days have been devoted to a discussion of the monstrosity of imposing upon anyone an agreement to which he may not be a party. I invite the Committee to look for a moment in that context on the assertion of hon. and right hon. Members on the other side who rely on voluntarism, at paragraph (4) of New Clause 15, where we come to the heart of the voluntary alternative put forward by those who assert the freedom of contract as a principle to stand above everything else.
      It provides that after a recommendation has been made:
      "… the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, order the employer or employers to whom the request was made to recognise the trade union or trade unions to the extent specified in the Order …".
      That is in the heartland of voluntarism. The Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, can order an employer to recognise. We recognise the need for comparable remedies and provide them through the machinery here. But right hon. Members
      338
      opposite cannot stand with the white sheet of voluntarism around their shoulders and invite the country to ignore what is underneath. The next sentence reads:
      "and where such an Order has been made by the Secretary of State the recognition prescribed in the Order shall be an implied term of every contract of employment between the employer or employers and … any employee for whose benefit that recognition is intended."
      Here we have the employees on whose behalf recognition has been sought. They may be reluctant or unwilling members of a union unable, on the case put forward by the Labour Party, to escape membership of that union. But those employees, with the employers, are to have imposed upon them by order of the Secretary of State an agreement by which both are bound, and which becomes part of the terms and conditions of employment. It is an alternative remedy for pursing the legislative objective; but I say to hon. Members opposite that to put forward that remedy, to say that there is no place for our prescription to resolve a difficult situation and to say that they are still holding the banner of voluntarism: that, with respect, is nonsense.
      I will deal shortly with a number of specific points put forward by the hon. Members for Walton and Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). Clause 148 makes it perfectly plain that a union that is not independent cannot make use of the statutory procedure for securing enforced recognition, because a union has to be free from employer domination to make use of such procedure.
      [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: It certainly can be referred. This is crucial. An employer can still refer a union which is not independent to this body which could be used as a delaying tactic. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was used in the United States over a considerable period of years.
      The Solicitor-General: It is true that an employer could refer an issue of recognition for an organisation that is not a registered union. Candidly, the proposal was not designed in any sense to achieve that, but to recognise that in many industrial situations there could be organisations at work on the ground, at the grass roots, whose case deserved to be looked

      339
      at even though they might not have achieved registration. But if hon. Members opposite are saying that the C.I.R. is likely to recommend recognition through this machinery of a house union, it is important to remember that the Commission in paragraph 33 of its First General Report stressed the importance of granting recognition to a union
      "that truly represents the interests of the employees".
      It goes on to say,
      "the union should be effectively independent of management and able to give the strength of organisational backing to the representatives who deal with management".
      It is clear that the legislation is intended to militate against the recognition of house unions. It is also clear that if what is known as a "sweetheart deal" were to be arrived at, a cosy get together between an employer and a house union, Clause 48 provides for the possibility of withdrawal of recognition from that house union. It provides a minority of employees with the opportunity to achieve this. It strikes me as a little inconsistent —although I understand each of the arguments separately—for the hon. Member for Kensington, North to say that we are in danger of excluding the aggressive unions which should be representing people rather than the house union, when in days past it was said that we were providing a Toughs' Charter whereby militant aggressive characters would disturb responsible unions which had been recognised. Not both arguments can be valid.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: One can have both situations in different circumstances. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman can accept that. A provision which could inhibit a house union being appointed certainly would not prevent from being appointed a union which has been "sweetened" by a provision for its own members.
      The Solicitor-General: But certainly it can then be challenged. I suggest that Clause 48 provides a way of doing so. Certainly this part of the Bill is not intended to be, nor is it likely to be, a foundation for the over-easy recognition of house unions in that kind of way.
      I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). He argued that there
      340
      are employers from whom a union will want to claim recognition and that they ought to have simple machinery to that end. That is certainly something, as several hon. Members have said, for which we proposed machinery in "Fair Deal at Work", so that a union seeking recognition should be able to achieve it.
      I do not want to trespass further than my hon. Friends would allow beyond the Rules of Order, but, when we come to it, perhaps I can explain how Clause 42 will provide a way in which a union could achieve that. But my hon. Friend makes a point of some force when he says that it should be possible to devise a way whereby a union simply seeking recognition as a single union against a single employer could perhaps get the right to a ballot more easily. But one still has here the residual questions, in respect of which employees is the union to claim that right, among which employees is a ballot to be held? There is always likely to be a question whether a ballot is to include the maintenance as well as the service staff, for example. But certainly we sympathise with his approach and are always willing to make sure that we have done all that we can to see whether we have achieved it.
      On that point, may I close by pointing out that we have here new machinery that is put forward to solve, we believe in the best way, a variety of problems which those on both sides of the Committee will recognise exist in this country. It is on that basis that I commend it to the Committee. It is designed to remove the causes of strife between unions, and between a union and an employer in the recognition situation, and I suggest that it deserves the support of the Committee.
      Mr. Orme: I return to the point with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just been dealing, when he quoted from paragraph 60 of "In Place of Strife", dealing with demarcation disputes. May I put it to him that he was talking about disputes which arise between unions having demarcation problems arising out of the nature of the work they carry out. I ask him, what has this to do with the appointment of a sole negotiating agent in this context of Clause 42?
      Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not demarcation disputes

      341
      between unions with which we shall be dealing, but something quite different? I think it is fair to say that as a result of the work of the T.U.C. and its disputes committee demarcation disputes no longer arise. I should like any hon. Gentleman to give me recent examples of disputes similar to those which used to occur in the shipbuilding industry, the construction industry and the engineering industry. Where are the demarcation disputes about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking taking place?
      What about the disputes that will arise because of the sole bargaining agent? What the right hon. Gentleman is aiming to achieve by this and subsequent Clauses is one bargaining agent within one plant. My hon. Friend raised the issue of there being a 60-to-40 proportion between two unions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have strong feelings about professional organisations being trapped by these Clauses. Let us consider the situation which would arise if the A.S.T.M.S. and the A.U.E.F.W. were in one plant, and the question at issue was which union should be the sole bargaining unit. The Solicitor-General owes it to the Committee to explain what paragraphs (a) and (c) mean.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a sole bargaining agent, but the Clause talks about joint negotiating rights within a plant while there is still a sole bargaining agent. Will the Solicitor-General explain this now, or does he propose to wait until we get to some of the later Clauses to tell us how this will work? Will a works committee be an appropriate body to be the sole negotiating agent within a plant where there are a number of unions representing different trades? Who will negotiate for the foundry shop, or the machine shop? Different unions could be involved. Will the works committee be a valid negotiating unit, and the sole negotiating unit, or will attempts be made to try to create a one-union situation in the plant?
      If there is industrial trouble now, goodness knows what will happen if we try to remove established trade unions of many years' standing, unions which go back to the beginning of the industrial history of this country. It just cannot be done. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can wipe out these unions, I remind him of the difficulties created in the United States when the sole bar-
      342
      gaining agent and the agency shop were created. American unions are based on more industrial lines than those in Britain, and no not have the historical background of the British trade union movement. There was tremendous difficulty when the change to which I have referred was brought in, and the Solicitor-General was less than honest when he talked about the 1947 Taft Hartley Act assisting in that situation.
      The Solictor-General did not tell the Committee that after the system had been operating for some time, and it looked as though it was coming down in favour of the militant unions, amendments were moved and approved in Congress to remove the advantages which the militant unions were gaining. Nor did the Solicitor-General give us the case histories of the number of employers in the United States who took steps to clog the machinery and stop the recognition of established unions.
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) talked about unions being quickly and easily able to establish recognition, without having to go through all this machinery. On top of the agency shop, this provision will make workshop organisation and negotiation a legal nightmare. I do not think the Secretary of State appreciates what the duplication of these different provisions will mean, with a 20 per cent. vote applicable in one instance, 51 per cent. in another, a two-thirds vote in another, and a majority being necessary in yet another, without stating what the majority ought to be. All this is stipulated in the Bill time and again and I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this will create an absolute morass of problems, which will not easily be resolved.
      I come now to discuss the Bridlington Agreement. When the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition we used to hear him talking about wanting stronger unions, fewer unions and proper agreements. The Bill and these proposals are running counter to those ideas, because the T.U.C.'s standing will be destroyed if this Measure goes through. The Bridlington Agreement will not be worth the paper that it is written on. How can the T.U.C. come in to mediate and use its good offices in an industry about which it knows something when it will have

      343
      High Court judges handing down judgments, with the power of legal enforceability to the unions concerned? With the best will in the world the T.U.C. will not be able to operate the Bridlington Agreement, and I think that this provision will make nonsense of the whole situation.
      Mr. David Mitchell: Is it not correct that under the Bill it will be possible for unions to make a binding agreement between themselves about how they will resolve demarcation disputes?
      Mr. Orme: They are now making binding agreements which do not need legal underwriting. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to give me instances of current demarcation disputes which are wrecking British industry. All that I am asking for are examples of such disputes. The answer is that they cannot give them, for the simple reason that the number of these disputes has been reduced, because the T.U.C. has operated efficiently, and because amalgamations have taken place in certain shipbuilding and attendant industries. Such disputes no longer arise, because trade unionists in Barrow, Glasgow and elsewhere have become convinced of the wastefulness of such strikes. The difficulties have been removed by the unions under their own constitutions, and under the guidance of the T.U.C., which has handed down decisions to the unions. These decisions have not always been popular, and the unions have not always accepted them in the form in which they have been handed down, but, because of their loyalty they have, in the final analysis, carried them out. Trade unionists understand the problem, and it goes to show that trade unions can deal with demarcation problems.
      The Clause has nothing to do with demarcation problems. It has to do with conflicts arising out of implementation of the Clause and its attendant Clauses. We shall come to some of the details later, but it is a bit odd that here again we have stuck in at the beginning of an important part of the Bill what is meant to be a definition Clause. It has nothing to do with the legal aspects of Clauses 42 to 49, and we have had no definition from the Government of what is meant. They have not defined paragraphs (a) and
      344
      (c). They have not explained the principles, or tried to see how the principles set out in the Clause will work. What we get in subsequent Clauses is how the law will be applied, and how it will be imposed. We have not had the overall picture. The Solicitor-General tried to make some point about new Clause 15. The policies and alternatives which we on this side have advocated in opposing the Bill are based on a voluntary system. I hope that on subsequent Clauses we shall be able to show the Secretary of State just how impossible these Clauses are and how heavily weighted they are against trade unions.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Government Front Bench rarely gives us practical examples. In view of Britain's long history of industrial relations I should have thought that the Government could use practical examples to illustrate how the Bill will work.
      I wish to refer to a practical example in my endeavour to find out how the Bill will operate. In the dustmen's strike last October the national negotiating procedure began to crumble after a while. When the joint body negotiating on behalf of all municipal employers was holding out for granting an increase of only 35s., the Labour-controlled Sheffield City Council, off its own bat, met the demand of 55s. in full.
      This action was bitterly criticised by the Conservatives on the council, who said that as employers the Sheffield City Council was breaking the agreement that the other employers were sticking to, that the negotiations should be national, and that the Sheffield City Council had no right to become the sole bargaining unit at a local level. The Conservative councillors said that the matter should be reported and that Sheffield councillors were liable to be surcharged. Legal advice was taken.
      Many Labour councils refrained from making separate settlements with their employees and getting the men back to work because they were advised by their town clerks or other officers that the councillors would be liable to surcharge. Many councils wished to settle on a local basis rather than wait for the mass of local authorities to move to get the dustbins emptied.

      345
      In a case such as that a local opposition could have a field day by making use of the Clause. It could be said, "We as Conservative councillors in a minority are also part of the bargaining unit. We as Conservative councillors have some rights, because we are members of the council. We as a minority opposition are part of the bargaining unit". They could apply to the Court, because in effect there would be a split in the employers' front. One part of the council could say, "We do not agree; and we, as a minority group on the council, have negotiating rights". They could try to stop the majority party on the council from paying the increase. They could take the matter to the Industrial Court, because the law is not clear.
      We shall get into an impossible position if local politics are allowed to bedevil a pay claim. Local councils form together the biggest employers in the country. They make I.C.I. look like chicken feed as regards the number of people they employ, the number of rises negotiated, the number of joint negotiating panels, and so on.
      Once it is possible for the law to step in to settle any disputes, it immediately becomes tempting for local minority groups to throw a spanner in the works; on the one side it could be politicians and on the other it could be local unions trying to take part in negotiations.
      As an example, the ambulance men are trying to establish their own union. In some areas local ambulance men have said, "We demand sole negotiating rights. We are no longer interested in belonging to the Confederation of Health Service Employees". So a dispute could be created by means of this tactic.
      I hope that when he replies the Secretary of State will give us examples of how the Bill would have applied in the local authority dispute, which was conducted under existing procedures. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that once the law is invoked in these matters any small point of dispute could cause havoc.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: The Bill has been left behind by the course of events. On an earlier Clause I argued that, although hon. Members opposite never tire of talking about how the Labour Government ran away from their own legislation at Downing Street one
      346
      morning, the Labour Government made an enormous advance in the sense that the trade unions—the constituent members of the T.U.C.—for the first time gave the General Council remarkable sovereign powers over the constituent bodies.
      I, too, remember the demarcation dispute which caused my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to include a provision about demarcation in her projected legislation. At that time there were fears of a dispute in the steel industry because of the differences between A.S.S.E.T. and B.I.S.A.K.T.A. While Clive Jenkins and Mr. Dai Davies were making all kinds of pugilistic noises, the Labour Government were concerned about what could have become a very crippling strike. We therefore decided that it would be advisable for us to do what we could to influence the trade unions to accept a decision from the General Council of the T.U.C.
      The T.U.C. intervened and made a decision which was not popular with everybody. In such a situation its decision could not be popular with everybody. However, the T.U.C. made a decision which was acceptable to both unions and a dispute in the steel industry was avoided. Since then there has been no demarcation dispute in the steel industry or anywhere else to my knowledge. The unions have given the T.U.C. powers to intervene in such disputes, powers which are far and away more effective than anything that can appear in the Bill.
      As the Committee knows, I differ in some ways from many of my hon. Friends on the question of legislation. However, I do not believe that in the matter covered by the Clause legislation can ever do anything. To use a word well known in the North, nous is the dominating factor in this matter. It is tempting for the biggest single union to demand sole bargaining rights. If the criterion is to be that there should be a sole bargaining unit, one can visualise a whole area of disputes resulting from the acceptance of that one union. At one time I was the convener of the biggest single union in a great plant. If I had tried to run that plant purely on the basis of the A.E.U. I would have had disputes every day. It is in this connection that the works committee procedure must obtain

      347
      and we must ensure that there is proper and adequate representation of the shop stewards of every union. They may not be able to justify a place on the works committee, but when matters of vital importance to their union are discussed they should be brought into the deliberations of the works committee subcommittee.
      Huge plants can be brought to a standstill by 20 or 30 men. How can we possibly determine sole bargaining agencies purely on the basis of numbers? The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that if 30 fitters among many thousands of people on the assembly line of a car factory or aircraft factory decided that they had a grievance and stopped work the assembly line would come to a halt within hours. I do not say whether I am happy about that situation or not. All that I am pointing out is that it is a fact. Suppose that those 30 people are members of one trade union which has not been given recognition in the sense of being a bargaining agent. How can we expect them to forget their problems merely because their union is not the bargaining agency, although if they insist upon that which they feel is necessary in their conditions of employment they know that the whole factory will be brought to a stop?
      I have had some experience in these matters and I do not pretend to be unusual in that respect, but I could run a coach and horses through Clause 41 at any time if I were the shop steward of a union which had not been given bargaining rights.
      In many great factories there are two works committees—one for the manual workers and one for the staffs. Which will be accepted as the sole bargaining agent? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the agreements of the staff unions can be completely different from the agreements of the manual unions. Is it to be said, "We are very sorry, but until a new arrangement has been made to bring the two committees together, and until they unify their procedures and the staff unions make the same agreements as the manual unions, or vice versa, one of them will not be able to function as a bargaining agent"?
      I can think of no way of making Clause 41 effective. I can see many ways
      348
      in which attempts to apply it are bound to cause disruption in factories where there is no disruption at present. The Clause is another illustration that the Bill is bound to create much more disagreement, although I give the Government credit for their attempts to eliminate areas of disagreement. No hon. Member can argue that there is now need for legislation to deal with demarcation disputes. The Bill is silly and stupid and is more likely to cause demarcation disputes than cure them.
      My hon. Friends have won the arguments to which I have listened. The Secretary of State has not made any concessions. We have had no indication from him that, because of the arguments which have been deployed, to which neither he nor the Solicitor-General has given an adequate answer, he will be willing to consider the matter again. On the question of demarcation, the Secretary of State is barking up the wrong tree. The provisions of Clause 41 cannot be made operative in any industry of which I know and they are far more likely to cause trouble than prevent it.
      I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State tells us that he is willing to look at the Clause again and to try to incorporate some of the suggestions made by the Opposition and bring forward suitable Amendments on Report.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Nicholas Scott: I intervene briefly to make four points.
      First, I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that this is a complicated Bill. The most misleading of the many misleading statements in the T.U.C. national advertising campaign was the assertion that it is easy to stop strikes. I do not believe that there is anything easy about it, and therefore this is a complicated Bill. I hope that when the Bill becomes law the Government will ensure that simple booklets and pamphlets are available on factory shop floors for those involved in the day-to-day running of industrial relations. I realise that that cannot be done while the Bill is still a Bill, but I believe that it will be absolutely essential once it is on the Statute Book.
      Secondly, the new Clause and the Government's general provisions demonstrate a clear division between the two

      349
      sides of the Committee. On the one side there is the Government's proposal that the law should set the framework for industrial relations, and, on the other side, there is the view that the Secretary of State should be involved in making orders. This is indicative of two completely different attitudes.
      Thirdly, I do not think democracy has very much to do with the matter. During the debate on "In Place of Strife" the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) declaimed about parliamentary democracy. She said:
      "Parliamentary democracy would be empty and meaningless unless it were underpinned by democratic institutions in the industrial field …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 43.]
      Under the Government's proposals there could be no order of the court in a recognition dispute unless there had been a ballot of the work people. Under new Clause 15 there could be, and the Secretary of State could make an order even if there had not been a ballot of the work people. I leave it to the Committee to judge which is the more democratic approach.
      Fourthly, the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) said that we do not need legislation for demarcation disputes. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to the ambulance drivers dispute. Who is to say that industrial action might not flow from that dispute? Who, looking at the aggressive development—I do not complain about it—of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and its possible future growth can say that it will not lead to recognition disputes and probably industrial action?
      Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a demarcation dispute with a recognition dispute. The ambulance men do not dispute who is to drive the ambulance. They are simply disputing which union shall represent them.
      Mr. Scott: There may well be recognition disputes about A.S.T.M.S. As that union widens its scope it will come into dispute with other unions, which may lead to industrial action. It is right that there should be provision in the law for resolving such disputes.
      In "In Place of Strife" the two problems of the recalcitrant employer and com-
      350
      petition between two unions were recognised as equal problems which had to be solved by legislation. New Clause No. 15 says that only one problem—that of the recalcitrant employer—needs to be dealt with. It is for the Committee to decide whether that switch in emphasis from "In Place of Strife" to new Clause 15 is in the interests of good, orderly industrial relations or whether it is in the interests of unity within the Parliamentary Labour Party.
      Mr. McNamara: The Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) have confused the whole issue of the Bridlington Agreement. They have confused three separate matters—the demarcation dispute, the recognition dispute and the inter-union rivalry dispute for the recruitment of members.
      As my hon. Friends have indicated—and no one has yet challenged us—there has been no major demarcation dispute in this country for a long time. On recognition by recalcitrant employers, there has rarely been any need generally for a union to seek the aid of the State for recognition in this sphere. On the question of poaching between unions, the Bridlington Agreement, the T.U.C.'s example of what happened with N.A.S.D.U. has been a strong and effective weapon agreed voluntarily between the unions to prevent that sort of dispute arising.
      The hon. Member for Paddington, South said that we could not explain the Bill to people on the shop floor because it is not yet passed. But we are to have some little booklets, and then they will understand what a Bill of 139 pages, with 150 Clauses and eight Schedules is all about. The booklets will explain to the lads on the shop floor what irregular industrial action is. We are to say, "Do not stop the job for a minute. Let is go through, and when you have finished you can have the dispute, and you have not broken the law on this occasion." That is the sort of situation which will be created.
      We shall hedge around the people who administer the aspirin on the shop floor to prevent major surgery later, if the type of proposal which the hon. Member for Paddington, South has been discussing comes into operation. It will make

      351
      shop stewards or union officials so hedged around by legislation that they will take no action for the benefit of their members because they are afraid of the consequences, until we have a whole lot of precedents to enable them to know what they can or cannot do. They may say, "To hell with all that. This is what I want to see happen, and this is what I am going to do." That will bring the whole fabric of law into disrepute, which will be bad for society as a whole. That is why we are against the Bill and the definition which exists here.
      In his opening speech my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that we reject the Clause. He mentioned the important statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in the other place on the situation with regard to professional organisations or unions, call them what one will.
      What will a bargaining unit mean? If a certain group of people, because of the concession made, are to be omitted, are we saying that we now have two standards of law, one for people with a professional qualification, with letters after their name and perhaps a university degree, and one for people who belong to a manual union or a skilled union, who do not have the same sort of professional qualifications although their organisations in essence, are no different from the A.E.F. or T.G.W.U.? These people have as much pride as professionals—those who regard themselves as professional workers.
      Those who listened to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who spoke about loyalty, devotion and professionalism within their own trade union, and what holding their union card meant to them, could not fail to see that the unions have just as much right to recognition and acceptance as has any other professional organisation. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State to give far more information about what he means by a register for professional organisations.
      Paragraph (c) of this Clause states:
      "'sole bargaining agent' in relation to a bargaining unit, means the organisation of workers…"
      352
      This is another anomaly created in the Bill. We are told that it means "an organisation of workers." But if one turns to the definition Clause, one is referred back from that to Clause 57, where one has the whole string of definitions of organisations of workers which may or may not be a trade union for the purposes of the Bill. If it is not a trade union, as defined by the Bill, then none of the safeguards for a registered trade union which are contained in the Bill applies to an organisation of workers which has failed to register, or which, once having had its name put upon the provisional register, does not allow any sort of claim to go forward on its behalf, and therefore lapses.
      We shall be in a situation in which we could have recognised as the sole bargaining agent an organisation of workers negotiating on behalf of its membership who will, if they take the limited right to strike action, which they have under the Bill, lose all the protection given to a registered trade union—which is not much. They will lose all that, but they will be recognised as sole bargaining agents under the provision of the Clause.
      The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. We should have more explanation from the Secretary of State on exactly what he means in terms of professional associations and the concessions he has made, and in terms of organisations of workers and the effects of this definition. Perhaps we may also have a recognition and realisation from the Conservative Party of the work which has been done by the T.U.C. under the Bridlington Agreement.
      Under the provisions of the Bill, if we had a new organisation of workers which was not a member of the T.U.C. but recognised under the Act as a trade union, and it wanted to behave like a rogue elephant throughout industry, it could create chaos unimagined in the House. We cannot have it.
      Mr. James Lamond: Listening to the Debate for the number of days which I have, it has become rather frightening to realise that this legislation has been prepared by well meaning people who unfortunately base their experience, I imagine, entirely upon matters such as letters to the Press about trade unionists and their activities and on an out-dated notion of what trade unions'

      353
      difficulties are at present. For example, we have been discussing two quite different aspects of trade unionism today: demarcation disputes and organisation disputes.
      For a long time I worked in a shipyard. As hon. Members know, for many years our shipyards were a hot-bed of demarcation disputes. That was only to be expected when one remembers that there were at least 39 unions in the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions at one time.
      One must appreciate the reason behind demarcation disputes. In a minor capacity, I have been called upon from time to time to judge which side in a demarcation dispute was right, and nothing educates one more than to listen to the two sides of such a case.
      In our shipyards, the chief reason behind many demarcation disputes was the simple fact of progress. After the last war, the techniques of building ships changed very rapidly. When I first started in the industry in 1944, a large part of the work was carried out by riveters. By the time that I had finished my apprenticeship, welders had come into the industry in greater numbers and taken over the work previously done by riveters, caulkers and others in the "black squad". Many men had served five-year apprenticeships, and they felt that their trades were slipping away from them. Anyone can appreciate the feelings of a man who realises that his training will be of no use to him in the future, and it is not surprising that he fights hard to retain as much work for his own trade as he can. Any tradesman or professional man would do the same.
      We in the trade union movement made it clear to men in this position that retraining programmes were available and that there would be no attempt to put them out of work and on the scrap heap at an early age. I do not believe that any law could have done what was achieved over the years by argument and persuasion. Laws do not remove from the minds and hearts of men the fear that what they produce and sell to keep themselves in a living is no longer required.
      That was the reason behind many past demarcation disputes. In the shipyard of which I am most intimately knowledgeable, there has not been a demarcation dispute for seven years,
      354
      since 1964, and there is no indication that there will be any in the future. That situation has been brought about by the trade union movement. Therefore, there is no necessity now to introduce legislation which is designed to help prevent demarcation disputes.
      When we come to look at disputes about which unions will organise certain groups of workers, we are concerned with a problem which is present today, particularly among those known as "white collar" workers, of whom my own union, the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association, organises quite a number.
      I will not attempt to deny that my union has been in dispute with certain other unions. Trade unions are in a fairly competitive world, and the possible areas for the expansion of their activities lie among the ever-increasing numbers of technical workers in industry. Behind that simple fact is the reason for a number of moves towards amalgamation between my union and the A.U.E.F.W. since the A.U.E.F.W. recognises the recruitment possibilities in the future among these workers.
      Inevitably, there will be disputes among unions about which of them is entitled to organise various groups of workers. But, just as the trade union movement solved the problem of demarcation disputes, so it has the capability of eradicating this second type of dispute in the long run.
      If anything, the chances of the T.U.C. doing this have been greatly strengthened by the fact that it has been able to assume more power than it had before as a result of the proposition of the Labour Party some time ago concerning legislation for the trade union movement. The T.U.C. and the trade union movement took a gigantic step forward as a result of the pressure put upon them by the Labour Party, and they have now got the powers which will enable them to solve any dispute about organisation without the necessity of the law intervening, which in my opinion would have been as ineffective there as it would be in settling demarcation disputes.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General dealt adequately and well with the general principles of the Clause, and I will not repeat

      355
      what he said. I shall deal mainly with the points which have been raised since he made his intervention.
      However, before doing that I should remind the Committee that here we are dealing with machinery of last and not first resort. We are not putting forward machinery to supplant all the voluntary machinery which operates, should operate and will be encouraged to operate in the future. We are providing a net to catch those cases which prove so stubborn and difficult that the voluntary machinery fails. They are not many but, when failures occur, usually they are very serious and very complicated. Perhaps it is not altogether surprising that complicated machinery is required to deal with them.
      We want to make sure that the machinery of last resort is constitutional rather than strike machinery. Both sides of the Committee agree that in the 1970s and onwards we ought to make available to the parties machinery for resolving disputes about recognition and bargaining rights, rather than, when all normal negotiating and voluntary procedures fail, leaving matters to be fought out by the crude weapon of strike action. That is in the interests of the community at large and of the unions and workers concerned.
      However, it is only a last resort and an alternative to strike action. It is undeniable that some of these cases exist. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that there were none of these cases nowadays and that no one can remember a great recognition dispute which had caused trouble in recent years. However, the dispute of the white collar workers in the steel industry was very troublesome for a long time. There was the Johnson Matthey case, where the A.U.E.F.W. and A.S.T.M.S. were in dispute. There was the ambulance drivers' dispute—
      Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the intervention of the T.U.C. and acceptance by both sides of the T.U.C.'s decision which settled it?
      Mr. Carr: Yes, I agree. Associated Octel was another case recently. In all of the four cases that I have quoted, A.S.T.M.S. has been involved. That is
      356
      no criticism of A.S.T.M.S., but it reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that in this new expansionary drive of trade unionism among white collar workers, where there is room for expansion and where it will undoubtedly take place, there is the likelihood of more union clashes and conflicts in the future than there have been in the recent past. Therefore, it is all the more necessary to have some machinery available, not to take the place of the T.U.C. and all the voluntary machinery that we have, but to provide a means of catching up with the minority cases which the normal voluntary processes have failed to solve.
      Mr. McNamara: I think that the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue, because he said "demarcation" when he really meant "recognition".
      I do not deny that there is competition. The machinery within the T.U.C., by virtue of the Bridlington Agreement, is being used effectively. It was this machinery which settled the steel dispute, not the Pearson Inquiry or anything else.
      Mr. Carr: I agree. This machinery should operate. We must also remember that not all unions, including well-established unions which hon. Members opposite regard as highly respectable, are affiliated to the T.U.C. There are some areas where, for various reasons, some unions are not affiliated to the T.U.C.
      An Hon. Member: Not many.
      Mr. Carr: Not many, but some. So there must be some machinery for those cases.
      There are also cases of employers who are not, either directly or indirectly through some subsidiary association, members of the C.B.I. Therefore, we cannot depend entirely on machinery which can only be operated when the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. are involved, because on both sides of industry there are employers and unions—they may be a minority, but they are there—who are not affiliated to the T.U.C. or the C.B.I.
      Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in connection with recognition as opposed to demarcation disputes, Johnson Matthey in which the A.U.E.F.W. and the A.S.T.M.S. were

      357
      involved. That is quite right. But there are so few of these cases that the exception is proving the rule. There is bound to be conflict. However, we say that such conflicts will not be resolved by this complicated legal structure.
      Mr. Carr: We believe that there must be machinery to pick up the minority of cases which fail to be resolved. It is quite wrong to suggest that the machinery which we propose will in any way prevent the T.U.C. continuing to operate the Bridlington Agreement. Unions will continue to be free to operate agreements limiting their freedom to recruit each other's members. I hope that they will continue doing so. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them.
      Clause 43, to which I may refer only briefly in passing, provides that a recognition dispute is not to be referred or dealt with by the C.I.R. until the parties have endeavoured to settle it themselves. Therefore, the C.I.R. cannot come barging in. This machinery cannot interfere. The Bill specifically provides that the machinery cannot be brought in until the parties have endeavoured to settle the dispute themselves.
      I underline again that we are not in any way replacing what is already there. Our proposal is the net to catch the few cases which fall through the normal procedure, which, almost by definition, are likely to be of a particularly difficult and stubborn nature. Therefore, we need this machinery. I do not believe that that is a matter of dispute between the two sides. The Opposition's case is not that there should be no machinery, but that there should be different machinery —hence new Clause 15. The Committee must decide whether the Government's proposed machinery is better than that proposed in new Clause 15.
      I wish to comment briefly on new Clause 15, but only on one or two matters of principle.
      First, new Clause 15 deals only with the recalcitrant employer. It is necessary that there should be machinery for that. But, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) recognised in "In Place of Strife", however different her proposal for dealing with it may be, there is also the possibility of the recalcitrant union not being prepared to accept recommendations or to abide by voluntary
      358
      agreements. The right hon. Lady will remember that this was one of the difficulties in dealing with the dispute about the white collar workers in the steel industry where a committee of inquiry made certain recommendations which were acceptable to certain people but not to all. So the right hon. Lady had to go back on that and start again.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      7.15 p.m.
      There is a potential problem in the rare case of the recalcitrant union as well as the rare case of the recalcitrant employer. Therefore, any machinery which we have must deal with both. My first argument for rejecting the machinery of new Clause 15 is that it deals only with the recalcitrant employer; it does not deal also with the recalcitrant union.
      Another criticism of the new Clause 15 machinery compared with the machinery which we propose is that it all hinges on the initiative of the Secretary of State. New Clause 15 begins,
      "Where it appears to the Secretary at State".
      For anything to happen at all it has to appear necessary to the Secretary of State to set everything going. We say that it can appear to the Secretary of State and he can start it, but it can also appear to the employer and to the union and they should be able to start it. It is important that the Secretary of State, the union and the employer are each able to start the machinery working in a stubborn case. Therefore, the second reason for inviting the Committee to reject the new Clause 15 alternative is that it leaves the right to start the machinery only in the hands of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is leaving out a very important part of new Clause 15, which, quite rightly, says:
      "Where it appears to the Secretary of State that an employer or group of associated employers has not complied with a request for recognition made by or on behalf of one or more trade unions … the Secretary of State may, after complying with subsection (3), refer that request to the Commission".
      Subsection (3) says:
      "Before referring any request to the Commission under this section, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the proposal—

      (a) to the employer …

      359

      (b) to the General Council and the Confederation".

      In other words, before the Secretary of State gets to the stage of making orders, a long process has to be gone through.
      Mr. Carr: I accept all that. But it is up to the Secretary of State to act or not to act in the end.
      The right hon. Member for Blackburn will no doubt be aware that she had in front of her as I have in front of me, requests, for example, to make references to the C.I.R. in some cases where employers are anxious that we should do it and in other cases where unions are anxious that we should do it. In those cases we have to consult, and all the rest. I do not complain about that. But we believe that if a Minister appears to be rather blind in letting something appear to him, the parties, if they feel strongly, should themselves have the right to activate the machinery. We believe that not only in this area, but in various other areas of the Bill, it is right that the parties, as well as the Secretary of State, should have the right to activate the machinery.
      The third point on which I take issue with new Clause 15 is the false claim which it puts forward that somehow our procedure violates the voluntary principle and that the new Clause supports it. That is nonsense. New Clause 15 in the end depends on an order by the Secretary of State. How is an order by the Secretary of State voluntary? It is not. The Secretary of State in making such an order if this machinery were adopted, would be recognising the unfortunate necessity of dealing with certain cases where, despite all efforts, the voluntary machinery had failed. Such cases are rare and regrettable, but the machinery suggested by the Opposition recognises that they exist and that if in the last resort they cannot be resolved on a voluntary basis they must be resolved by some form of order.
      Mrs. Castle: I thought that it was common ground between both sides that, in industrial relations, there are certain rights which are in the I.L.O. conventions and which we think should be in the law of the land. One is the right to belong to a union, another is the right of a union, where it is clearly representa-
      360
      tive or is judged to be so, to be recognised and negotiated with by an employer. We accept those as being part of a voluntary system of collective bargaining. But that is very different from having, by law, the choice imposed between different parties where there is a voluntary machinery like the T.U.C. doing that adjudicating between one union and another.
      Mr. Carr: I am saying that, when we reach the end of our process, whether it be the process which I advocate or the process which the right hon. Lady advocates, in the last resort, force—I use that word in the limited sense which we understand—is involved. The argument between us is whether that compulsion is by the order of the Secretary of State or by order of the Court. In our system, it is by order of the court; under the right hon. Lady's system, it is by order of the Secretary of State.
      I ask the Committee to judge which is more accountable. So far as I know, the sort of orders which the Opposition are putting forward and which the right hon. Lady put forward in her Bill, which was published last April but not debated, are not debatable in this House. Therefore, which gives more satisfaction to the parties? Under our procedure, the order is made by the court, and before the court makes the order, all parties involved can go before the court and state their case, to be taken into account before the court decides whether or not to make the order.
      Which is more democratic? Which gives more right to the parties to have their points of view taken into account—the chance to go before the National industrial Relations Court, including not only a judge but two people sophisticated and knowledgeable and experienced in the ways of industry, and to have their case stated, or an order by the Secretary of State which is not even debatable?
      Mr. Orme: We are dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. How accountable to this House is the court which he is setting up? It is not accountable at all. A High Court judge will hand down judgments to trade unionists when he has no knowledge of the working conditions or anything else.
      Mr. Carr: It will not be handed down by a High Court judge with no knowledge of working conditions, because the

      361
      whole basis of our system involves the establishment of specialised courts which, in addition to a lawyer, shall include two people of industrial sophistication, knowledge or experience. So the judgment will be given only by these people—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member and others like him refuse to take their opportunity to involve themselves in this sort of decision, it is their fault and no one else's; they had better realise it, as their members will realise it too.
      The idea that nothing is democratic or satisfactory unless it is accountable or arguable in this House is a fiction. This country depends—the whole constitution and the whole way of life is based—on the concept of freedom under the law. Parliament also criticises the executive, but—I repeat—the sort of order which the right hon. Lady envisages is not even debatable in the House. If she had her way, all we could do is ask the right hon. Lady a question at Question Time.
      I do not believe that that is in any way equivalent, in the satisfaction of the parties involved, to being able to go before a sophisticated and knowledgeable court to state their respective cases before the Order is made. So for that reason, we reject this machinery.
      In answer to fears expressed by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and one or two others who asked, "What will these units be and what will the bargaining agents be?", I would say that both the units and the agents will be on the recommendation of the C.I.R., which is also a highly sophisticated industrial body. It will not come in at all if the parties have agreed among themselves. This is only a reserve power to deal with the cases which fail to be resolved by normal voluntary methods. When they have to be, the unit will be defined by the C.I.R., as will the bargaining agent—not by the court or the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the C.I.R., supported, or thrown out, by a ballot of all those involved.
      The hon. Member for Salford, West was concerned about what would happen in a multi-union situation, with a number of unions entrenched by long history and practice in a particular works or industry. We realise that, and that is precisely why we have not copied the United States law. We are always being accused of copying the United States, but
      362
      we have not done so here, precisely because we realise that the situation here is quite different. This is why we are not insistent that the sole bargaining agent must be a single unit.
      This is why we are saying that the sole bargaining agent can be a joint panel, such joint panel as the C.I.R., with all its knowledge and sophistication, after full inquiry, shall decide as appropriate and shall recommend. So there will be no question of someone forcing through one union on a narrow majority and telling others to clear off to the courts.
      Mr. Heffer: Would the Secretary of State clarify one point? He said earlier that the C.I.R., not the courts, would determine, as it were, "constituencies" and boundaries and descriptions of workers. Can he explain Clause 43(3) which says that where the Industrial Court refers a question to the Commission,
      "… the reference shall specify both the question to be determined by the Commission and the employer or employers, and the employees or descriptions of employees, in relation to whom it is to be determined."
      The way I read that—I may be wrong: I am not a lawyer, although I understand that legal opinion agrees with me—is that the court will very much determine constituencies and boundaries and descriptions of workers. Let us have it spelled out.
      Mr. Carr: We can discuss this when we reach that point, but I can assure the Committee that that is not so. But we must, when referring something to the C.I.R., define what we are referring. That happens in Secretary of State references at the moment. In this case, as the reference would have come through the court, the court must define the reference, but some other Clause—the precise number escapes me at the moment—specifically allows the C.I.R. to find on inquiry that it is dissatisfied, and, if it thinks that it is being confined, to be able to apply for the reference to be extended.
      I am sorry that I cannot, on my feet, direct the hon. Member to the particular Clause and subsection where that happens, but I assure him that Clause 43(3) is no more than an official definition of a reference. If the C.I.R. finds this too restricting or wrong, it can change it. If the Committee is not satisfied about that, let me be clear about the intention and

      363
      say straight away that, if the Committee feels that the words do not make that intention clear, one one will be more happy than I to make it clear.
      Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman says that collective unions within a plant will be able to negotiate jointly, but of course, as my hon. Friend has just said about Clause 43(3), this means that some outside body will, at some ultimate date, decide whether a certain union is included —so the freedom is not there, as it is at the moment, for a collective works committee to be appointed.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. He will keep thinking that this is a new machinery that we are imposing on everyone ab initio. It will come into play only when all the normal voluntary processes have been at work and have failed. It will not come in unless all the voluntary processes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have been tried and have, unfortunately, failed.
      We are dealing here only with the machinery to pick up the minority of cases where all the normal, traditional, voluntary processes, including those of the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and all the other bodies active in this field, have tried their best and have failed. We believe that there must be some machinery available to deal with such a minority of cases. We commend our machinery to the Committee and ask it to reject that put forward in the new Clause.
      [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The Secretary of State worked up an extraordinary lather about something that only he could read into our new Clause—the unwarranted assumption that the order referred to would not be debatable by the House. It is not the Opposition's task to try to redraft his Bill for him. We have done a very thorough, serious, painstaking job in presenting a viable alternative to his proposal. But he would not expect us to write out all the consequential Amendments.
      The Solicitor-General: Where do the Opposition stand on this? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that new Clause 15 was a
      364
      reproduction of the proposals in the right hon. Lady's Bill. I accept that we cannot expect all the consequentials, but Clause 6 of that Bill, of which the new Clause is a compressed edition, made it clear that the order to be made by the Secretary of State for recognition was not to be debatable. It was expressly excluded by a later Clause in that Bill from those which were debatable in the House. In other words, it was not voluntary. It was not even debatable. It was an executive order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 6 of her Bill.
      Mr. Walker: I shall refer again to the extraordinary proneness of the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General, in advancing their arguments, to continue to rest on what we did at another time and in different circumstances. It is extraordinary that a Bill which has not been debated in the House, the justification for which circumstances prevented us from presenting from the Government Dispatch Box, should so continually be invoked by the Secretary of State. Perhaps as much as anyone in the House he knows that any decision or action by any Minister is accountable to the House; the Minister must be responsible to the House for it. To that extent the Minister would be answerable to the House for his actions, whatever might be in the Bill and whatever the intentions in our proposed new Clause.
      The Secretary of State touched my heart strings when he referred to the British Steel Corporation situation. I was in the Department involved in that at the time. It caused me and my right hon. Friend a great deal of anxiety. In the last resort, that situation was resolved by the unions, when everyone had had a nibble at it and failed. That proves the point that my hon. Friends have been making so persuasively from the back benches. All the unions involved—14 or 16 of them—are opposed to what the right hon. Gentleman is now pressing on the House.
      The right hon. Gentleman seemed to share the curious idea of his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that recognition of a union can be secured on a democratic basis only through the ballot box. We have pressed the Government to give us concrete examples of the situations in which their

      365
      proposals would apply. With the single exception of the reference to the British Steel Corporation we have not had any. I will give another example—the situation at B.S.R. at East Kilbride, where a bitter conflict between workers and management was resolved not through the ballot box but by the Commission on Industrial Relations. It did not impose a solution on anyone, but persuaded both employer and workers alike to accept what proved to be the solution.
      The right hon. Gentleman said of the proposals in this part of the Bill, echoing what he had said on so many earlier proposals, that he is dealing here with machinery of last resort. That was his phrase. We heard that so many other proposals were for dealing with extreme cases, hard cases. But the right hon. Gentleman has convinced the country that his Bill deals with the generality of cases, that he is legislating for the widespread disorder that he says exists in industrial relations. Now he tells the Committee that proposal after proposal is intended to deal only with the extreme case and last resort issues. Cannot he see that if he provides what my hon. Friend the Member for Walton accurately described as very complex and lengthy procedure to deal with these matters he is providing a very tempting gateway for the recalcitrant employers? My hon. Friend said that there are recognition problems that give rise to disputes and conflicts, and we must recognise this. It is out of such recognition that we have tabled the new Clause.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is not here. He worked himself up into a hysterical lather the other evening about the alleged destructive rôle of the Opposition Front Bench. We have sought to put before the Committee a very carefully-thoughtout constructive alternative, based on the very lengthy experience that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had with these matters at the Department of Employment and Productivity and after the fullest consultations with all the parties to whom the proposals would apply.
      I return to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. One thing has puzzled me throughout. Why do we have the Clauses in this part of the Bill dealing with bar-
      366
      gaining rights which seem largely to duplicate the agency shop provisions? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that union recognition is one thing and bargaining rights and recognition of those rights are quite different, we are duplicating what has already been provided. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had explained why he found it necessary to provide these two different parts of the Bill.
      We have not yet had a reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, and pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the rumoured proposal that there will be a special, separate register for professional workers. I had not heard of it until this afternoon, but I noticed that hon. Members on the Government back benches were nodding their heads when my hon. Friend referred to it, so it seems that they are somehow privy to information that has not yet been put before the Committee. If so, it is important that the information be provided to us, because it is crucial to the context of the Clause.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked some pertinent questions on this point, which have not yet been answered, revolving around the question of who will be the professional workers eligible for this privileged status. How does one define a professional in this context? Is it someone who has qualifications accorded to him by passing examinations of a learned body? For example, are teachers professionals? They readily assume themselves to be so. These are the sort of things we have had no reply to.
      I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has sought to turn the debate into one about interunion disputes. I could not help feeling again that if "In Place of Strife" had never been written, he would have been obliged to invent it in order to provide himself with his stock bolt hole. He must recognise that the Industrial Relations Bill presented to the House by my right hon. Friend before the election differed substantially from "In Place of Strife" in the light of our pursuit of democratic procedures, which contrast very sharply with his own haste with this Bill.

      367
      The changes we made arose not only from the very lengthy and detailed consultations we had with the T.U.C. but also, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) said, from the fundamental changes that took place, as a result of those consultations, within the trade union movement and in the relationship between the T.U.C. and its constituent unions. It is time that the Government woke up to what happened during the summer of 1969. Then, for the first time, the affiliated unions to the T.U.C. surrendered part of their sovereignty and gave additional powers to the T.U.C. over a wide range of matters over which hitherto they had proclaimed their autonomy.
      It lies ill in the mouth of the Solicitor-General to lecture the Committee about demarcation disputes, particularly in the light of the dispute which recently occurred in another place when his own learned profession insisted on its exclusive right to man the judiciary. It is hardly appropriate for him of all people, as the defender of one of the remaining restrictive practices, to be lecturing us about demarcation disputes.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the definition of independent unions in Clause 148 safeguards the position about which we expressed so much anxiety—that is, the possible recognition of house unions consequent upon the provisions of Clause 42. I have searched Clauses 41 and 42 in vain so far for the word "independent", and in the absence of that word it is difficult to reconcile what he said with the position in the Bill and to justify his defence of the position against the charges made by my hon. Friends.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) complained bitterly about the inadequate definitions in several subsections of Clause 41. But even more fundamental is the fact that the Bill does not define what is meant by "recognition". This is extremely important. Recognition per se is insufficient. It is not enough for an employer who has refused—[Interruption.] I did not know that the Foreign Secretary was an expert on industrial relations. Perhaps I might return without his assistance to the point. It may not strike him as of
      368
      fundamental significance but it is fundamental to ten million workers in industry.
      It is not sufficient for an employer, having gone through the drill laid down by the Secretary of State for Employment, to say, "I will concede your right to be a member of a trade union. Now, so what?". It is not sufficient, when a member of a union invokes, as he sees it, his right to have his union negotiate on his behalf, to see that negotiating right rendered nugatory by derisory and ridiculous offers by the employer.
      One of the points of principle in new Clause 15 is a recognition that the right to negotiate does not take place in a vacuum. Union recognition does not take place in a vacuum. It arises from concrete issues in negotiations about terms and conditions of employment. If, having secured recognition, the workers in a factory want a substantial wage increase negotiated through their union, it is obvious that, unless "recognition", is carefuly defined, the employer can make it ridiculous by a derisory offer—for example, "Very well. I will fulfil my obligation by offering you one penny an hour".
      We therefore deliberately included in new Clause 15 the provision that the order would become an implied term of every contract of employment between employer and employee. This is rather different from what was in my right hon. Friend's Bill because she provided there that the order that would be made by the Secretary of State would be one that would enable the union to proceed unilaterally to arbitration about a particular issue that was to be the subject of negotiations. The decision of the arbitral body would then have become an implied term of contract of employment. It would then, of course, have been pursuable in the courts in the same way as any other part of the contract of employment.
      We have exposed not only the weaknesses but also the impracticabilities of the procedure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—a procedure which we acknowledge tilts at the problem which undeniably exists—and in doing so we have put forward our own positive alternative, albeit modified. Because it was based on the profound understanding and experience of industry of those with whom we had consultations; because it was

      369
      based fully on the diagnosis prepared by the Donovan Commission; because it had the backing of the T.U.C., we put our proposal before the Committee as a practical and constructive road ahead in tackling this very difficult problem. That
      is why I ask the Committee to vote against Clause 41 and subsequently to vote in favour of new Clause 15.
      Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 251.
      Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 42

      PROPOSALS FOR RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, Amendment No. 758: In page 30, line 2, leave out 'Industrial Court' and insert 'Commission on Industrial Relations'.
      We have already covered the arguments behind this Amendment and in order to make progress I propose that we do not debate it but record our position.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 298.

      Division No. 132.]

      AYES

      [7.48 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Drayson, G. B.

      Jessel, Toby

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jopling, Michael

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Eden, Sir John

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Astor, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Awdry, Daniel

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Emery, Peter

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Eyre, Reginald

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Balniel, Lord

      Farr, John

      Kinsey, J. R

      Batsford, Brian

      Fell, Anthony

      Kirk, Peter

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Kitson, Timothy

      Bell, Ronald

      Fidler, Michael

      Knox, David

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Lambton, Antony

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Lane, David

      Benyon, W.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Bitten, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Foster, Sir John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fowler, Norman

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

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Fox, Marcus

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

      Body, Richard

      Fry, Peter

      Longden, Gilbert

      Boscawen, Robert

      Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

      Loveridge, John

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gardner, Edward

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gibson-Watt, David

      MacArthur, Ian

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Braine, Bernard

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      McLaren, Martin

      Bray, Ronald

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Brewis, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      McMaster, Stanley

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Goodhew, Victor

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gower, Raymond

      McNair-WEilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Bryan, Paul

      Gray, Hamish

      Madel, David

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

      Green, Alan

      Maginnis, John E.

      Buck, Antony

      Grieve, Percy

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Marten, Neil

      Burden, F. A.

      Grylls, Michael

      Mather, Carol

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Maude, Angus

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

      Gurden, Harold

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Mawby, Ray

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Channon, Paul

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hannan, John (Exeter)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Chataway, Rty. Hn. Christopher

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

      Churchill, W. S.

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Molyneaux, James

      Clegg, Walter

      Havers, Michael

      Money, Ernie

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hawkins, Paul

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Cooke, Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Coombs, Derek

      Heseltine, Michael

      More, Jasper

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hicks, Robert

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Cordie, John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Mudd, David

      Costain, A. P.

      Holland, Philip

      Murton, Oscar

      Critchley, Julian

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Crouch, David

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Neave, Airey

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hordern, Peter

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Curran, Charles

      Hornby, Richard

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Normanton, Tom

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Nott, John

      d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Onslow, Cranley

      d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Dean, Paul

      Hunt, John

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Osborn, John

      Dixon, Piers

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      James, David

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Pardoe, John

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Peel, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Tilney, John

      Percival, Ian

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Sharples, Richard

      Trew, Peter

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh & Whitby)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Shelton, Will:am (Clapham)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Simeons, Charles

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Price, David (Eastfeigh)

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

      Waddington, David

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

      Soref, Harold

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Speed, Keith

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Spence, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Sproat, Iain

      Wall, Patrick

      Raison, Timothy

      Stainton, Keith

      Walters, Dennis

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Stanhrook, Ivor

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Redmond, Robert

      Steel, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stokes, John

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Tapsell, Peter

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Robert, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

      Worsley, Marcus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Rost, Peter

      Tebbit, Norman

      Royle, Anthony

      Temple, John M.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Mr. Hector Monro and

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Horam, John

      Albu, Austen

      Deakins, Eric

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Huckfieid, Leslie

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Dempsey, James

      Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Ashley, Jack

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hunter, Adam

      Barnes, Michael

      Driberg, Tom

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

      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'h'n&St.P'cras,S.)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      John, Brynmor

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ellis, Tom

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Booth, Albert

      English, Michael

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

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Evans, Fred

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Bradley, Tom

      Fernyhough, E.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

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

      Jones,Rt.HnSirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Buchan, Norman

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Judd, Frank

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Foley, Maurice

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Foot, Michael

      Kelley, Richard

      Campbell, I. (Dunhartonshire, W.)

      Ford, Ben

      Kinnock, Neil

      Cant, R. B.

      Forrester, John

      Lambie, David

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Lamond, James

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Latham, Arthur

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lawson, George

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Garrett, W. E.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Leonard, Dick

      Cohen, Stanley

      Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Coleman, Donald

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Concannon, J. D.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Cronin, John

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whltehaven)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hardy, Peter

      Mabon, Dr. J Dickson

      Davidson, Arthu

      Harper, Joseph

      McBride, Neil

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      McElhone, Frank

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      McGuire, Michael

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)

      Hilton, W. S.

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      372

      373

      Mackie, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Pendry, Tom

      Strang, Gavin

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Pentland, Norman

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. F.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Swain, Thomas

      Marks, Kenneth

      Prescott, John

      Taverns, Dick

      Marquand, David

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Probert, Arthur

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

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Rankin, John

      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

      Mikardo, Ian

      Richard, Ivor

      Urwin, T. W.

      Millan, Bruce

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

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

      Molloy, William

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Roper, John

      Wallace, George

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Watkins, David

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Weitzman, David

      Moyle, Roland

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Wells, William Walsall,N.)

      Murray, Ronald King

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

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Ogden, Eric

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Whitlock, William

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      O'Malley, Brian

      Sillars, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Oram, Bert

      Silverman, Julius

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Orme, Stanley

      Small, William

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Spearing, Nigel

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stallard, A. W.

      Mr. John Golding and

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      [For Division list 133 see col. 448.]
      Mrs. Castle: I beg to move Amendment No. 726:
      In page 30, line 4, at end insert 'or oroganisations of workers'.
      The Temporary Chairman: It will be convenient for the Committee to take also Amendment No. 727, in page 30, line 7, at end insert 'or any organisations of workers'.
      Amendment No. 728, in page 30, line 14, after 'union', insert 'or any organisation of workers'.
      Amendment No. 729, in page 30, line 17, at end insert 'or any organisations of workers'.
      Amendment No. 730, in page 30, line 19, after 'unions', insert 'or any organisations of workers'.
      Amendment No. 73, in page 34, line 23, at end insert 'or organisation of workers'.
      Amendment No. 734, in page 34, line 24, after 'unions', insert 'or organisation of workers'.
      Amendment No. 750, in Clause 52, page 41, line 8, at end insert 'organisation of workers, or'.
      Amendment No. 751, in page 41, line 10, after 'union', insert 'or organisation of workers'.
      Mrs. Castle: Having discussed the principle of the Government's new machinery, we come in this Clause and subsequent Clauses to examine its details. The first question we must ask is who will be entitled to take advantage of this elaborate provision for the establishment of bargaining units and bargaining agents. In this group of Amendments we are dealing with a principle which runs through the Bill, namely, that unless a trade union registers under the

      375
      iniquitous provisions of the Bill it shall be denied the right to operate as a trade union at all. We shall have a lot to say about this as we go through different parts of the Bill and come up against different manifestations of this principle, but in this group of Amendments we are dealing with two particularly mean and damaging facets to good industrial relations.
      The first is the denial expressed throughout the Clause of the right of an unregistered union to make an application for recognition for bargaining purposes. Just as an unregistered trade union was denied any rights under the agency shop provision, so an unregistered trade union is denied any rights under the concept of the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent.
      The second facet is the denial of the right under Clause 52(5) of an unregistered trade union to have access to the information from the employer which in future the law will provide because the Bill admits that such information is necessary for negotiation. Therefore, what happens in Clause 52 is that if a union is unregistered it will not be entitled to the information without which—and I quote Clause 52(1)—
      "the trade union representative would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining …"
      The Government's intention is that any union which on grounds of principle refuses to register on the present Government's terms will not only in future forfeit the traditional protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act, but will be totally outside the pale of collective bargaining.
      That this is the Government's intention is made quite clear in the Consultative Document, and the Bill has faithfully reflected the intention of that document in these Clauses. In paragraph 131 of the Consultative Document the explanation of this bargaining machinery is expressed as follows:
      "The Government proposes to provide that any registered trade union, any employer or registered employers' association … could make a claim to the National Industrial Relations Court to have any dispute over a trade union's claim for recognition, or over bargaining structure, examined by the C.I.R."—
      I emphasise "any registered trade union", and no other.
      376
      The Consultative Document says in paragraph 134:
      "The 'bargaining agent' would be the registered union, or the joint negotiating panel of registered unions, which should have sole negotiating right for all employees within a bargaining unit."
      When we study these words we realise the totality of the exclusion of any union which under the Bill is ostensibly given the right to decide not to register. The Government say that if a union wants legal protection it can register, but here they are going much further. As a result of these Clauses unregistered unions for bargaining purposes in innumerable situations would cease to exist. They would vanish into thin air so far as the Government are concerned.
      This is a devastating new principle which goes far beyond anything contemplated in Donovan. The Donovan Report has been quoted by the Government ad nauseam and always selectively. The Government have even prayed in aid the Donovan Report in respect of the registration proposals which we shall be discussing in the next part of the Bill. In fact, we shall be discussing them tomorrow and will examine in detail the sort of insults and indecencies the trade unions have to swallow in order to be registered.
      I am concerned with the nature of the penal clauses for a union which says that it does not want to register. What are the sanctions against such a union? They will not be legal sanctions in the sense—
      Mr. Raymond Gower: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a trader who is required to register under the business names legislation is subjected to certain disabilities in the event of certain kinds of proceedings. Has the right hon. Lady ever considered that kind of requirement to be unreasonable?
      Mrs. Castle: It depends first on the nature of the disabilities, and secondly on the purposes which are to be achieved. We have been told that the Government are trying to achieve the better regulation of industrial relations. The only disability Donovan ever suggested was withdrawal of immunity under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. Donovan said that in a particular context. That was in the context of conditions of registration which

      377
      in Donovan's words, were to be no more onerous and certainly no more restrictive than the present ones under the 1871 Act. Donovan made clear that he foresaw no difficulties under his conditions for any existing union which is registered to remain on the register, but in withdrawing the immunity of Section 3 of the 1906 Act—with which we on this side never agreed, as is made clear in "In Place of Strife"—Donovan was thinking of temporary unofficial combinations. Donovan makes this quite clear in paragraph 794 in which it visualises how easy it is for anybody to register and the report later examines whether it is right for unofficial groups to have the protection of Section 3 of that Act.
      I do not agree with the conclusions of Donovan in regard to withdrawal of that immunity. I am quoting it to show that there is no suggestion in Donovan that if a union refused to register—and the conditions of registration in this Bill are far more far-reaching than anything visualised in the Donovan Report—it would from thenceforth cease to exist in bargaining terms. Therefore we have a principle adopted here whereby the Government say to great trade unions, many of which are now facing great decisions of principle—and I would stress to the Government how important it is for them to take seriously the debate now going on in these unions as to whether as a matter of principle they can consider registering— "Not only will you lose the immunity of Section 3, but you will have no bargaining rights whatsoever, for they will just not be there". It will be purely for the good boys who have signed on their dotted line to be considered to have first and foremost right to make application to go through this machinery and all these gateways, to get "vetted" and ballotted for and therefore finally approved as a bargain agent. If any group of unions one of which, on principle, has said it does not want to register puts forward an application under this it will be ruled out, because only a joint panel of registered unions will be eligible.
      Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend's argument on this principle would apply to my own A.E.W.U. which has already taken a conference decision in regard to registration. But also, is not it rather strange that the words which my right
      378
      hon. Friend is seeking to insert are found in every other part of the Bill where they want to catch the unions for unfair industrial practice, but where it is going to operate in this respect those words are deliberately left out, showing the bias there is in this matter?
      Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right, but the time for us to elaborate on that in greater detail is tomorrow when we are discussing registration. Then we shall be able to draw together the total picture. I am trying to keep myself within the confines of the Clauses covered by these Amendments, Nos. 42, 46 and 56 broadly, where we seek to have these words inserted. There may be others where we should have done so, but this principle runs through my group of Amendments. With regard to the union's right to receive information from an employer in order to be able to bargain effectively, I believe the Donovan Commission would be absolutely horrified at this attempt to dragoon proud unions into swallowing their principles in this way.
      I want to repeat the warning I was giving to right hon. Gentlemen. Many unions are now faced with this decision; and this kind of treatment of the unregistered union is going to make it more likely they will decide not to register, not less likely. There comes a point when the provocation is so great that a man, an institution or a group of people, can only keep their innate pride and dignity by saying, "To hell with you". The Government, in Clauses like this, are provoking otherwise deeply responsible unions into that attitude of mind. This is made all the worse by the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend has just referred, the different treatment in regard to the penalties falling on the organisation. Organisations of workers do not get any plums. It is made worse by the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred earlier in the debate between the use of the terms "trade union" and "organisation" in this very Clause.
      Why is it, for example, that under subsection (1) of this Clause only a trade union or trade unions are entitled to make application for recognition as sole bargaining agent or as a member of a joint negotiating panel whereas in subsection (3) an employer can make an

      379
      application for an organisation of workers to be so recognised? We have had no explanation of this discrepancy. The view was expressed by my hon. Friends behind me that this is a clear gateway for an employer to push forward a house union or a company union for recognition as the sole bargaining agent. I say to the Solicitor-General advisedly that no other interpretation can be placed on this discrepancy. How did it slip in? He has said that that is not the intention. This is a very detailed Bill. It has been drafted with considerable consciousness of intention on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have not liked their intentions but we have to admit that they have expressed them very clearly.
      I do not believe the Solicitor-General was having a nap when the draftsmen slipped the term "organisation of workers" into subsection (3) instead of the term "trade union" which we have in subsection (1). There was a reason for having that, and it has an effect; because the term "organisation of workers" in Clause 57 of this Bill is not defined in a way that would exclude a house or company union. The Solicitor-General has said that by "organisation of workers" is meant an independent unregistered trade union. He said an organisation of workers is an independent body, it is not a house union.
      Certainly, when we insert the words "organisation of workers" we mean an independent trade union which has decided not to register. That is why we have tabled an Amendment which we will be discussing when we come to Clause 57 to amend the definition of "organisation of workers" in that Clause; because at the moment it does not subsume the word "independent". The Solicitor-General says if only we will turn to the interpretation Clause, Clause 148, we will see that our fears here are misplaced. I believe I quote him aright when he referred us to the definition of independence given in that interpretation Clause. It reads:
      'independent', in relation to a trade union or other organisation of workers, means not under the domination or control of an employer", etc.
      But that is not the same as saying that throughout the Bill wherever the phrase
      380
      "organisation of workers" is used, by definition it means that that body is independent.
      8.30 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: There are real questions to be debated here, and I do not want to mislead the right hon. Lady or the Committee on any aspect. "Organisation of workers" is defined in Clause 57, and does not have to be independent. A trade union, as defined in Clause 57, is one that is registered, and a registered trade union—in other words, a registered organisation of workers—has to be independent, in the words in which the right hon. Lady has described it.
      The right hon. Lady is right in her premise that "organisation of workers" means an unregistered organisation which need not, by definition, be independent. Trade union means registered, which must be independent. I am not to be taken as conceding the rest of the right hon. Lady's case. The point is that it is only a registered union which can secure recognition enforceable against an employer.
      Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his honesty, because when the point was raised earlier by my hon. Friends that subsection (3) meant that an employer could put forward a non-independent organisation of workers for acceptance as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, right hon. and learned Gentlemen gave us the impression that that was not so. He is now saying that it is so, that my intepretation of the subsection is correct. The Solicitor-General may go on to say that that is not the Government's intention. If that is his answer, the remedy is clear. It is to put the word "independent" before "organisation of workers", as has been done in another Clause.
      The Solicitor-General: I apologise to the right hon. Lady for interrupting again. That is not our intention, and we believe that we have fulfilled our intention, because this is really designed to enable an employer to go through the machinery of the C.I.R. if an unregistered organisation is seeking recognition. It is not designed to enable him to go there to get a tame house union certified by the C.I.R., and what I said on that point is that the C.I.R., consistent with the standards which it has enunciated in its First General Report,

      381
      will not put forward for establishment through statutory machinery a non-independent union. But if that were to happen and an independent union were claiming to be recognised instead, it could make its own claim under Clause 42, so that the effect is in line with the intention. I do not want to mislead the Committee, and if the Committee is anxious about it we can consider the way in which it is put forward, but I want to be on common ground about what the words mean.
      Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for making clear that my analysis of the Clause as it stands is correct. My analysis is under subsection (3) it would be feasible and possible for an employer to put forward a house union to the C.I.R. and the Government's only defence to what is an outrageous proposition, as I think the Committee will agree, is that the C.I.R. in its annual report has made it clear that it will always choose an independent union.
      Which C.I.R.? Not the C.I.R. that we have now. Not the C.I.R. with Will Paynter and Alf Allen on it. Not the C.I.R. set up to be an independent voluntary body, operating a voluntary policy. It is a C.I.R. which has become emasculated because the trade union members refuse to be the creatures of the Government's Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman is finding great difficulty in getting to serve on that Committee anybody who would have the confidence of the trade union movement. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and therefore it is no assurance to anybody to say that the C.I.R. will be the long-stop.
      What is the Government's intention? Do they want employers to be free to put forward house unions, tame unions, captive unions? Coupled with that there is the fact that under the Clause as it stands, if strong, established unions refuse to register they will not be allowed to apply or to be considered. The only conclusion that one can draw about the Government's attitude to industrial relations is that they are out to debase and humble proud established trade unions, while giving opportunities for the promotion of tame house and company unions, unless the right hon. Gentleman amends either the definition of "organisation of workers" in Clause 57, or puts the word "independent" in subsection (3) of the
      382
      Clause, as he has in Clause 63 where he wants to make it clear that he is talking about an independent organisation. I think I am right in saying that it is Clause 63 which says:
      "any organisation which—
      (a) is an independent organisation of workers".
      So where the Government want to make clear that they are talking about independent organisations of workers they put the word in. Will they put the word in to establish their intention; will they insert "organisation of workers" or "independent organisation of workers" at the points of the Clause to which our Amendments refer and in the subsequent Clauses to which our Amendments refer.
      We shall have a later Amendment to define "organisation of workers" as always being independent. The right hon. Gentleman can either accept the later Amendment or he can put "independent" in front of "organisation" throughout the Clause.
      I ask the Committee to take these two points very seriously. I do not believe that the Government can claim that they are trying to reform industrial relations or introduce greater stability unless they make these two vital Amendments for which we are pressing.
      Mr. R. Carr: It might assist the Committee if I give at least a quick interim reply now. I must reply "No" to both the questions which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) asked.
      As the right hon. Lady said, these Amendments raise the whole question of registration and the principle behind it. We shall be discussing the details of that tomorrow and it would not be proper for me to go into them now. However, I think that it is proper to mention the principle.
      It is a basic principle of the Bill that privileges and rights should attach to registered unions—registered organisations of workers—over and above those which attach to non-registered ones. That is for better or worse a clear principle of the Bill and it is at the heart of what we are putting forward.
      The right hon. Lady talked about the principle in rather emotive language. She talked about dragooning proud unions

      383
      into registraton. At the end of her speech the right hon. Lady talked about our being out to debase and humble proud unions by asking them to register if they wanted certain rights and privileges.
      What about the public? Are we to debase and humble the public? The right hon. Lady said that the unions would say, "To hell with you". She was not referring to you, Mr. Godman Irvine, but to me. Are we to say to the public, "To hell with you"?
      Mr. Orme: Who are the public?
      Mr. Carr: The public are the 50 million people of this country. They include about ten million trade unionists and their families, but they are the whole of the people. What we say, and what we believe that it is right to say, is that if unions claim, as they do, and rightly do, to exercise very great influence and very great power in our community, both economically and socially—they claim it; they should claim it; we make no complaint about it—it is not unreasonable that they should comply with certain minimum standards and register so as to achieve that power, that status and those special rights and special privileges. We admit that they should have those special rights and privileges, but we believe that the public as a whole—the 60 million of us—have a right to say to any trade union or to any other organisation—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is 60 million now. A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that it was 50 million.
      Mr. Carr: —of people in this country, whether they be trade unions, doctors, architects, traders or any section one likes to mention, "If you claim to exercise power in our community, you should comply with certain minimum standards". That is the basic principle of registration. It is the basic principle of the Bill. I should be very surprised if that principle did not have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of people, including trade unionists.
      There is nothing oppressive in the conditions for registration which we lay down and which have to be fulfilled. This is not dragooning proud trade unions. It is not debasing or humbling them. It is asking proud unions which were once
      384
      very weak but which are now strong to accept the responsibilities and duties in relation to the rest of the community which the community has the right to expect and which every other sector of the community has laid upon it. That is the basis of registration, and we had better get it clear before we start. We can discuss the details of it tomorrow.
      The principle of registration was accepted by the Donovan Commission and by the right hon Lady the Member for Blackburn. The details, which I agree are very important, are different. We are not talking about the details now. We are talking about the principle of registration. If our conditions for registration are wrong, that is an argument which we can have tomorrow. What we are now saying—and surely it should be possible for the two sides of the Committee to agree about it since it was recommended by the Donovan Commission and by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn when she was in my position—is that registration should be a pre-condition of achieving trade union status. The form and conditions of registration are matters for important argument. We are now discussing the principle of registration as a pre-condition to achieving trade union status and all that goes with it. A principle of our Bill is that registration should be the means of obtaining certain important rights and privileges.
      The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn talked about the provisions in Clause 42 clearing a gateway for employers to push forward a house union. That is nonsense. The whole burden of the right hon. Lady's argument—and I am sure that she is more rational than her argument made her out to be—concerned the great disability attaching to non-registration. She says that by confining these rights—in the last debate they were "evil powers", but now they are "rights"—to registered bodies we are unfairly placing a disability on non-registered bodies. That is a point of view. But, by definition, the house union, which she is afraid of and which she says we are clearing a gateway for, must remain non-registered because it can acquire registration and the rights which go with it only if it can satisfy the registrar that it is not employer-dominated.
      If an employer puts forward an unregistered union under this procedure, as

      385
      I agree an employer could do, what is the good of the C.I.R. recommending it? The complaint in this Amendment is that an unregistered body will get no benefit from that process. But the house union must, by definition, remain unregistered. It is therefore nonsense to suggest that the Clause advances the employer-dominated house union. It benefits registered unions. That is what the Amendment complains about, because the Clause gives benefit to registered unions which is denied to unregistered unions. If one says that it gives benefits to registered unions which are denied to unregistered unions, one cannot say that it is promoting house unions which, by definition, must remain unregistered.
      [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there are no benefits at the end of the day, why does he allow them to be referred to the Industrial Court in the first place? Second, will he tell the Committee why employers have a right to refer any trade union in this regard? This is a matter for trade unions. The Government are now bringing in another party that can interfere with the freedom and basic right of a trade union. Why have they given the employer this right, so that he can differentiate between one class of union and another?
      Mr. Carr: As I have already explained, it is because we believe, as a matter of principle, that certain benefits and rights should accrue to registered unions. If an employer is faced with an unregistered body seeking to obtain negotiating rights in competition with a registered union—
      Mr. Orme: Smash the unions.
      Mr. Carr: It is no good the hon. Member sitting there muttering, "Smash the unions". We are talking about an employer faced with an unregistered body, probably in competition with a registered union, and the employer wanting to resolve the conflict caused by this intrusion by an unregistered body. We properly give that employer the right to go through this procedure and to say to the C.I.R., "We believe that we have a recognition problem here which needs your help to resolve, because we have been unable to resolve it through all the normal
      386
      channels." The employer would go to the C.I.R. in this case not to obtain a blessing on an unregistered union but to try to persuade the C.I.R. to give their support to the registered body with which he wants to negotiate and to deal with the unregistered intruder which is causing the trouble. That is the purpose.
      True, the employer could also ask for a house union to be considered, as the right hon. Lady said. But, as I have said before, what would be the purpose of this? Whatever the C.I.R. might advise, it is most unlikely that it would recommend a dominated house union for recognition, but even if it were mad enough to do so, what would be the purpose? All the legal privileges which come in this Clause attach only to registered unions and, therefore, could not attach to the employer-dominated house union, which has been raised as a bogey.
      Mr. Roland Moyle: Accepting for the sake of argument that all that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, what have the Government to lose if they accede to the Amendments? What have they to lose by accepting the case pressed from this side of the Committee?
      Mr. Carr: We want to preserve the position which I have just mentioned, about the employer who is having trouble with recognition. Also, we believe that registered unions should have privileges and rights above unregistered unions. It is not true to say, as the right hon. Lady said earlier—
      Mr. Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was talking about the specific case in which an employer would take a house union to the C.I.R. I understand that he is arguing that the house union would in any case be ineffectual because of the provisions of the Bill. If that is the case, why on earth does he not concede the case argued by this side of the Committee, because there is nothing between us?
      Mr. Carr: I maintain that it is unnecessary to add anything, because since the privileges attaching to this Clause can apply only to the registered unions, they cannot, by definition, apply to the employer-dominated house unions. My only objection is that this Amendment, clearly, is not necessary. By definition, it is ruled out, because the employer-dominated union which hon. Gentlemen

      387
      opposite rightly do not wish to see encouraged could not achieve registration and therefore would not benefit under the Clause. That is the basic answer.
      Mrs. Castle: The language throughout this group of Clauses is totally arbitrary and confusing. One Clause refers to "trade union". Another refers to "organisation of workers". Let me refer the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 45(3), where a question has been referred to the Commission about bargaining rights and the Commission has examined the case and transmitted a report. The Clause says in subsection (3):
      "A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers … as sole bargaining agent … unless it appears to the Commission … that this would be in accordance with the general wishes of the employees …".
      There is an clear indication that the Commission can and might recommend an organisation of workers. All that it has to do is satisfy itself that, for example, the employees of a bank want the bank's house union and not the Union of Bank Employees.
      It is true that only a trade union can make application to the Industrial Court for an order enforcing it where a trade union has been nominated. But an employer can apply to the court. Therefore, I suggest that for some inexplicable reason the right hon. Gentleman is dodging from one phrase to another. In one Clause it is "trade union" and in another, "organisation of workers". For clarity of drafting, we should have consistency.
      Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady is missing the point. We believe that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be able to recommend an unregistered organisation, provided that that is put to the test and found to be the wish—
      Mrs. Castle Mrs. Castle rose—
      Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady must be patient and allow me to finish my sentence. We believe that the C.I.R. should be able to recommend an unregistered organisation, provided that it is put to the test and discovered to be the wish of the majority of the workers.
      388
      Let us suppose that that has happened. To achieve the legal sanctification, potency and benefit that the Clause confers, that unregistered body would have to become registered. If it remained unregistered, it would not have the benefit, protection and status provided by the Clause. If that unregistered body were an employer-dominated house union, it would not be able to achieve registration and, therefore, would not be able to achieve the sanctification of the Clause.
      Mr. Heffer: But it does not have to be registered. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand his own language.
      Mr. Carr: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
      Mr. Heffer: Clause 45(2)(c) refers to
      "… every trade union or other organisation of workers …".
      It does not go on:
      "… which under the terms of this Section will then become a trade union."
      Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 46, he will discover that in order to be given the power, validity and legal status conferred by this Clause, it has to be a registered trade union. That is the whole point. In so far as the Clause is held to confer benefits, they should be benefits only for a registered trade union.
      The right hon. Lady began her speech by saying that an unregistered body is not to have any bargaining rights. That is nonsense. I must remind the Committee of what I said in replying to the debate on Clause 41. Here, we are dealing only with the safety net procedure. It is a procedure for catching the cases which fall through the net of normal industrial relations procedures. Of course, unregistered organisations of workers can always bargain.
      We are saying that unregistered organisations shall not have new statutory rights —for example, in respect of this Clause, or, to take another point raised by the right hon. Lady, in respect of information. They do not have those rights at the moment. In future, they will have the rights which they have now, but the new statutory rights will be confined to registered bodies.
      There are no penal sanctions against unregistered bodies, but there is a denial of certain rights. It may be controversial,

      389
      but we believe that it should rest on the principal of registration. Whether our principles of registration are right or wrong is no doubt a matter of separate debate and deep controversy. All we are saying is that these rights should depend on the achievement of registration. We believe that to be a sound principle, and we shall stand by it.
      Mr. Orme: Listening to the involved reply which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he went from one Clause to another to try to prove his point—my right hon. Friend pointed out that "organisation of workers" appears in one Clause and "trade unions" in another—makes me wonder whether shop stewards and trade union officials will understand it.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the validity of the argument which we have put forward on the Amendment. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Amendment talks about voluntary independent trade unions, but the Minister's proposal will take away from them these basic rights. The right hon. Gentleman spoke polemically on this matter. We feel just as strongly in answering his point.
      I want to deal with the right of the employer to refer a matter to the court for decision on which should be the bargaining agent. It was not clear to me why this was written into the Bill in such detail. Now I begin to see, after what the Minister said, why it is put in. It means, for instance, that, in an industry where there is an unregistered militant trade union or a union which the employer finds difficult in negotiations and there is also a registered trade union, the employer will be free to submit the registered trade union, not the voluntary union, and get the Commission's endorsement or recommendation that that body shall be the negotiating agent.
      I understood the Minister to say that every union would have the right, or a ballot would be available, to decide which should be the negotiating agent. But, as I see it, it could be used deliberately by an employer, first to try to buy time against perhaps the main union in the organisation and, secondly, to undermine that non-registered trade union.
      I believe that the Minister will be faced with a situation in which unions will not
      390
      register—probably some of the key trade unions—and this will call into question the whole basis of the Bill.
      I assume that throughout the whole of the Clauses, the industrial notes for guidance will spell out many of these facts. We ought to know what these notes for guidance are. Again, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
      Many of these Clauses are unintelligible unless the Code of Industrial Practice runs alongside. I assume that the Code will deal with many of these points, but we do not have it. We have no indication of what it will say. The more we go into the jungle of these Clauses, 42, 43 and 44, the more we see the difficulties which we are up against. They will not untangle industrial difficulties but will make life almost impossible for people of good will in industry when faced with an employer or an employer's organisation which wants to be a devil's advocate against a union, whether a house union or a registered union. This could be disastrous and I do not think that the Minister has seen this point.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Gower: We appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and his right hon. Friend have spoken passionately for what they conceive to be the best interests of the trade unions and those whom they represent. I only regret that implicit in the manner of their speaking, is a conviction, which I am sure is misplaced, that, whereas they have the best interests of the unions passionately at heart, the Government are intent only on destroying or bashing the unions, or, as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, knocking them down—
      Mr. Orme: History shows it.
      Mr. Gower: It shows nothing of the kind. I am prepared to debate that with the hon. Gentleman, but this is not the time.
      This country needs a strong, self-reliant trade union movement. Our industry cannot do without it.
      Mr. Heffer: There was a report in The Times yesterday on the West German trade union movement, which showed that, as a result of there no longer being

      391
      any closed shop or 100 per cent. trade unionism, there has been a rapid decline in strength and power of the trade unions.
      Mr. Gower: I am sorry for any trade union movement which cannot achieve maximum membership through the quality of its service to its members. I hope and believe that our experience will be to the contrary.
      Any Government needs a strong, virile and self-reliant trade union movement. I see nothing in the registration requirements complained of by the right hon. Lady which should be of any difficulty to our excellent trade unions. Indeed, most of them will automatically fulfil the reasonable requirements for registration.
      The right hon. Lady did not reply clearly to the simply question which I asked her about those engaged in trade who have to fulfil the simple requirement of registration under the Business Names Act. If they fail to do so, they are at a serious disability if they then have to sue for non-fulfilment of a contract. But no one has suggested that that requirement of registration is unreasonable. Similarly, practically every commercial organisation, from the joint stock company in all its infinite varieties, private public and otherwise, must fulfil very comprehensive requirements of registration. The requirements here are reasonable, as my right hon. Friend has been at pains to point out.
      Mr. Heffer: They do not have to accept an enemy in their camp, do they? Clause 61(7) virtually means that a trade union will have to accept someone who is basically against the interests of the union, whether it likes it or not. If it does not accept that, it cannot be registered.
      Mr. Gower: As that it has to do is to satisfy the formalities of the Act and show the registrar that its rules and procedures are fair, democratic and reasonable. To us, that is unexceptionable, and I should have thought that it would appeal to most hon. Members. Is it reasonable to add the words in the Amendment and so lessen the require-
      392
      ment for registration prescribed by the Bill?
      My right hon. Friend's reply is unanswerable. The requirement is merely one that will enable any registered trade union to apply for the very considerable powers as special bargaining agents. There are no express disabilities from non-registration. It merely happens that this is one of the new extensive powers that unions will very properly hold and exercise under the Bill.
      I see no objection to the present wording. The Amendment is impossibly loose. The phrase
      "or organisations of workers"
      could mean almost anything. It would not even be limited to a sort of unofficial trade union. It could include all kinds of organisations of workers which could be totally unrepresentative. I cannot believe that the Opposition will really divide the Committee on such absurdly wide wording.
      Mr. Orme: If it is such terrible wording and is so wide, why does it keep appearing in all other parts of the Bill?
      Mr. Gower: I am saying that it is absurdly loose in this precise context. The Bill provides that the application be made by any trade union, and the Opposition chime in with
      "or organisations of workers".
      That wording is far too wide and imprecise in this context, and for that reason alone must be rejected.
      Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is too loosely worded and imprecise to be included in subsection (3)?
      Mr. Gower: I am dealing solely with the Amendment.
      Mr. John Fraser: When the Secretary of State replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) he did what he has done once or twice in the Committee. When stuck with a problem of reality and a problem of the drafting of the Bill he retreats to something he calls principle, as if he will ascend into the clouds at Blackpool in October and draw divine inspiration for something he cannot justify to the Committee. That is what he has done this time. He knows perfectly well that there

      393
      is a real drafting problem and a problem in reality raised by the absence of a provision that an organisation of workers may apply for recognition. He reminds me very much of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Instead of getting a spell book, the right hon. Gentleman got a law book from the Solicitor-General. He will learn one day the same lesson as the Sorcerer's Apprentice learned—not to meddle with academic abstractions when dealing with reality.
      What the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) are saying is that it is wrong if the National Union of Mineworkers refuses to register or if the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers refuses to register, and they shall not be accorded recognition rights. He said that they must be forced to register; they must comply with basic provisions in order to achieve recognition rights. That is the argument.
      Let us think about reality, not principle. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that if large unions choose not to register they should be denied recognition of the right to negotiate with the employers? What is also suggested, if that is not his argument, is not that one must register to obtain certain privileges, but that certain privileges will be taken away from one if one remains exactly as one is at the moment.
      When the right hon. Gentleman says that certain privileges will be accorded only to those who go through the hoop of registration, he has the whole equation wrong. He is equating a trade union with something that does not even exist on the employer's side. He is not saying to us, for example, that, on the employer's side, in a corporate body such as a limited company, every member of that corporate organisation should obey certain principles. If he were saying that, he would surely be saying that the Government believe in putting an end to non-voting shares. He says that every member of a trade union must have control over its branches, its officials and its funds. Is he saying that every shareholder should have control over the directors of the company, should participate in the organisation and should have control over its branches? He is getting the equation wrong.
      The Solicitor-General: All we are saying at the moment is that the range of law that governs trade unions and their relations with their members is and should be at least as open to public debate and variation in the interests of the public and of trade union members as company law has been over the last 100 years. Company law has been changed and re-changed and modernised to deal exactly with these points, and it has happened without controversy. All we are asserting is that relations in trade unions should be as much open to consideration and discussion.
      Mr. Fraser: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten is that one can choose to operate as a limited company or as a partnership. If one chooses to operate as a partnership, there is practically no legal restriction on one. We say that people should have the right to operate as a registered trade union or as an unregistered trade union. That is the equation.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In a partnership, the full funds of the two partners are at risk and therefore they are more at hazard at the law than is a company. In the comparisons the hon. Gentleman is making between a union—an association of workers, if he likes—and partnerships, he will find that there is greater imposition of law on partnerships than is contained in the Bill.
      Mr. Fraser: I do not disagree, but, first, the privileges are greater, and, secondly—and this is the vital thing—it is the principle of association that one has the right to choose whether one does one thing or the other. But the right hon. Gentleman is saying that any trade union in negotiation with employers will not have the right to choose because, if it does not register, there will not be the right to recognition.
      Mr. R. Carr: I am not saying that. I am saying that if, for example, the N.U.M. remained unregistered, it would have just as much right, unregistered, to obtain recognition from the National Coal Board as it has today. But it would not have acquired a new extra legal right to recognition over and above what it has today unless it registered.
      Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman chooses the N.U.M. as an example of an

      395
      organisation with which, he says, a State organisation will continue to negotiate. He concedes that he is refusing the right to apply for recognition as a trade union. But under the structure of the Bill, the employer can go to the Industrial Relations Court and apply for de-recognition. No doubt he will say that the C.I.R. would not be mad enough to produce that situation, but he is producing a Bill whereby it is possible for employers, who do not have to go through this hoop, to apply to have a union de-recognised, and in the context of organisations which are recognised as responsible, that is ridiculous.
      9.15 p.m.
      The right hon. Gentleman says that under Clause 46 the Court can accord recognition only to a registered trade union. Why is it that Clause 43 talks about an "organisation of workers"? Why is it that Clause 45(3) talks about:
      "A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers …"
      unless certain conditions are fulfilled? Then it goes on in Clause 45(5) to say:
      "… before recommending any organisation of workers …"
      and in subsection (6) it says:
      "Any recommendation contained in such a report may be made subject to such conditions as the Commission think fit; and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) any such condition—
      (a) may require an organisation of workers recommended for recognition…".
      Subsection (b) says:
      "may require any organisation of workers so recommended …".
      How on earth can he quote his statement to the Committee that only a registered trade union can have an order for recognition when he uses the phrase "organisation of workers" repeatedly?
      There is only one explanation—that it is only where the trade union is to be recognised that there can be a ballot and that is where the words "trade union" appear in Clause 46. It could be that under that provision the Commission for Industrial Relations could recommend a house union for recognition without a ballot but where the registered trade union wants recognition, it has to have a ballot. If the right hon. Gentleman
      396
      says that I have completely misconstrued the terms of his Bill, then all I can say is that I am entitled to because of the way it is drafted. May I ask him or his learned friend not to run away from the argument by talking about principles. Will he please answer the debate?
      Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member has completely forgotten in his argument that the whole reason for using the words "organisation of workers" in those Clauses is to give every opportunity to a body that is unregistered at the moment to get into position and be recommended for recognition, and to get registration so as to be able to have the enforcement of its rights in Clause 46. If it were an employer-dominated house union—I must repeat what I have said—it would fail to get the registration and therefore would not get the rights and privileges conferred in Clause 46.
      Mrs. Castle: If that is so, what is the objection to putting the word "independent" in front of "organisation of workers"? As long as the right hon. Gentleman refuses to put in one simple clarifying word that would allay everyone's doubts, he must exacerbate those doubts.
      Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: This Amendment throws a good deal of light on one of the paradoxes of the Bill to which I have tried to draw attention. My right hon. Friend has said many times, and I accept his sincerity, that his intention is to be perfectly fair as between employers and organised workers. The way this fairness is translated into legislative form in most Clauses is by assuming that trade unions and employers' organisations are mirror images of each other, that they are equal, symmetrical twin pillars on which the whole structure can be built. In some Clauses, particularly Clauses 61 and 65, virtually identical rules are laid down for those two kinds of organisations. But the fact is that trade unions and employers' associations are totally different kinds of structure. I will not go into detail about all the differences that are relevant, but there are several points in the Bill where this artificial parallel breaks down completely, and this Clause is one of them.
      My right hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that it is his intention to insist on confining certain privileges, one of which

      397
      is embodied in the Clause, to those who have accepted the responsibilities of registration. He does that for trade unions, but he does not do it for employers. If we look one line further beyond the Amendment, we see that an employer has the right conferred by Clause 42 without any proviso or requirement about registration under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has pointed out that employers have to be registered under company legislation, which is perfectly true, but there is no obligation in the Clause on an employer to undergo the process of registration and to accept the responsibilities of registration before he enjoys the privileges created by Clause 42(1).
      My right hon. Friend has good reason for insisting that the privilege on the side of organised workers should be confined to the registered trade union. He has made out his case on that point, but if he wishes to be fair, should he not also write into the following line an addition specifying that this privilege is only to be enjoyed by an employer who is a member of an employers' association and therefore limited by the same requirement of registration, as defined in the later Clauses of the Bill, as the trade union is in operating under the previous line of this Clause?
      Mr. James Sillars: I am sorry to detain the Committee, but it is necessary to question the Secretary of State a little more deeply on the details of the Clause. During the debate I have been going backwards and forwards through the pages and getting mixed up, for example, between the joint negotiating panel, which refers to two or more organisations of workers, and the joint negotiating trade union panel, which deals with registered organisations. As one goes through the relevant Clauses one finds occasionally the "joint negotiating panel", which is obviously taken to be the joint negotiating trade union panel.
      The Secretary of State said that one of the misconceptions on this side of the Committee was to think that we were talking about a general situation. He claimed that this was a safety net, the long stop, to take account of the occasional situation that arises. I refer the Committee to the Explanatory Memorandum, which says nothing of the kind. It simply says:
      398
      "Clause 42 provides for an interested employer, one or more trade unions or the Secretary of State to present to the Industrial Court an application that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be asked to examine questions relating to the definition of a bargaining unit and recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent with exclusive negotiating rights."
      There is nothing there to say that the Clause is intended to deal with the exceptional case. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that it is possible under Clause 42 to have established house unions or creature unions of the employers.
      The trade union is entitled to make an application but not an organisation of workers. Yet the employer is entitled to make an application on behalf of an organisation of workers. Naturally, in the light of the history of the trade union movement, particularly of the Foremen's Mutual Benefit Society, we are bound to be suspicious of a such situation. Nowhere in Clause 42 and subsequent Clauses do we find any explanation for the situation which might arise when an employer creates a house union and makes an application to the court for that house union to be the sole bargaining agent.
      What happens when the court examines the case and finds that both the employer and the house union are in agreement that the house union should be the sole bargaining agent? Clause 43 and subsequent Clauses deal with the situation where there is a conflict of interest or view between employer and trade union. Clause 43, for example, says that the court must be satisfied that both parties
      "have made adequate use of any facilities for conciliation available to them."
      But what does the Court do when the parties are not in disagreement? We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for a detailed reply on this point. This again is an excellent example of the reason that a guillotine should never have been applied to this Bill, simply because of the sloppy wording of Clauses 42 to 50.
      Mr. Iremonger: One thing on which both sides of the Committee is clearly united is the fact that there are benefits, rights and privileges which it is intended trade unions should enjoy. Up until now

      399
      I had thought that this was a generally-recognised principle. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) did himself less than justice by saying that this was not a matter of principle. I regard this as one of the fundamental principles of the Bill.
      Mr. John Fraser: What I said, or was trying to say, was not that it was not a matter of principle, but that it is no good trying to escape detailed argument by saying that it is just a matter of principle and stopping there.
      Mr. Iremonger: That may well be, and perhaps I have the hon. Member with me in saying that it would be a matter of principle. I certainly thought that both sides of the Committee were united that the benefits, privileges and rights enjoyed by trade unions should be dependent upon trade unions being registered.
      Mr. Heffer: It is like the privileges of a man in gaol.
      Mr. Iremonger: It lies ill in the mouth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to denigrate the rights, benefits and privileges which are the object of this legislation—
      Hon. Members: What rights?
      Mr. Iremonger: I will answer that in one sentence: the rights conferred by Section 42—otherwise what are hon. Members talking about? Presumably they are arguing that they want trade unions to be able to enjoy certain rights. Perhaps the most obvious right is that contained in the Clause with which we are dealing, namely the right to be recognised as a sole bargaining agent. If that is not a right worth talking about, then we are wasting our time in discussing this matter.
      Mr. James Tinn: Will the hon. Member not accept that trade unions are quite prepared to safeguard their own rights, whether it be of recognition or anything else, without having to depend on legislation such as that contained in the Bill which will restrict them in so many ways?
      Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member is a little unwise, because the rights enjoyed by trade unions are those conferred by
      400
      legislation. Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act is a right conferred by law on trade unions, and I should have thought that if it were sought to repeal those rights any such move would be very much resisted.
      9.30 p.m.
      I am afraid the hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. Either the Amendment he has put down is designed to secure a benefit or it is not, and if it is then we might take it as agreed that a benefit is to be secured and that is what we are talking about. The argument before the Committee is whether or not the benefit ought to be dependent upon registration and I had thought that that was common ground between both sides of the Committee. I agree that it is open to argument whether or not the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is correct, fair and right in saying that the provisions for registration in this Bill are odious and unacceptable. That is her view, and it is something which the Committee will have to consider in due course when we come to it tomorrow.
      That is absolutely fundamental, but the point I wish to establish at this stage on these Amendments is that it really is not appropriate for the right hon. Lady, who I believe is about to rise and I would like to know her comments on this, to deny the second principle which is that the rights conferred by the Clause, or any other part of any enactment, should be dependent upon registration; because she has herself analysed the situation in these words:
      "The present legal requirements relating to the rules of trade unions are inadequate and should be extended in the interests both of the unions and of their members."
      She goes on to say that legislation should propose that trade unions should register with a new registrar of trade unions and that unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters—admission, discipline, disputes between a union and its members, elections, strike ballots and the appointment and functions of shop stewards, and should be required to register. The right hon. Lady even went further and said that refusal to register by a trade union should lay that trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board.

      401
      At this stage, therefore, although the Committee may well be persuaded by the right hon. Lady when the time comes that the provisions for registration in the Bill are wrong or unfair or should be changed, it is a matter on which the Committee will have to decide and we are not prejudging it now. But, with great respect, it is quite wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite at this stage to try to fly in the face of the principle which is fully accepted by both sides that the very considerable rights and privileges which trade unions claim should be enjoyed without registration, and registration subject to rules determined upon by this House.
      Mr. R. Carr: I intervene only for a moment, but it might be helpful to the Committee if I do so because I believe there is at least one point on which we can reach agreement. I have said quite clearly, as has my hon. and learned Friend, that it is not the intention to encourage the employer-dominated house union. We also believe, and genuinely believe, that that is not the effect of the Clause as it is worded at the moment: and I have explained why. Nevertheless, while I do not like adding unnecessary words to a Bill, I do not mind adding one if it helps to solve the difficulty.
      I must say to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that I do not believe it is possible to add it where she would wish to add it in this context. I believe the place to add it might be in Clause 45, and I will tell the Committee that when we come to that point at another stage I will consider very favourably the possibility of including there something which makes clear that the Commission will be empowered only to put forward as a sole bargaining agent an organisation which is independent. That, at least, would clear up that point beyond peradventure.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      Mrs. Castle: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for trying to help us achieve greater clarity. Clearly we shall want to examine the right hon. Gentleman's proposal before we are satisfied that it offers us greater clarity or that it goes far enough. None the less, we shall be glad to examine the proposal on Report, which is no doubt when the right hon. Gentleman will put it forward.
      402
      The right hon. Gentleman realises that he has not conceded the main principle behind our Amendments, and we therefore intend to divide the Committee. He has tried to say that nobody should be opposed to the principle of registration, that I have not opposed it in "In Place of Strife", and so on. He says that we ought to agree on that, even though we argue about the conditions tomorrow. Our case is that it is impossible to differentiate between the principle of registration and the conditions of registration.
      The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rattled off at me about the trader who has to register under the Register of Business Names Act and said that there was nothing iniquitous about that and nothing to which anybody can object, but, as I told the hon. Gentleman, no great disabilities follow, and whether it is iniquitous to expect a trader to register depends entirely upon the conditions imposed upon him and what disabilities might flow from that requirement. Would the trader to whom he referred have registered so equably if, as a condition, he was forced to allow someone to work for him who was also working for his competitor?
      That is the kind of condition which will be imposed on the trade unions under the next part of the Bill. We cannot accept that we should concede the principle of registration and argue merely about conditions, and I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 258, Noes 300.
      [For Division List 134, col. 451.]
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 697:
      In page 30, line 5, to leave out '(b) an employer'.
      The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 698, page 30, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The purpose of the Amendments is to delete the provision under which an employer can apply for a trade union to be appointed

      403
      the sole bargaining agent and the subsequent provisions in subsection (3).
      The great danger to which the Secretary of State and other Ministers have referred which these very unsatisfactory provisions of the Bill are designed to meet would all be satisfactorily met by deleting the provision which the Amendment is designed to eliminate and leaving the trade union to make an application to be appointed the sole bargaining agent and the employer, in the rare cases in which the problem justified the step, to make an application to the Secretary of State to apply for a union to be appointed as sole bargaining agent.
      The reasons which prompted me to move the Amendment stem from my fears of the danger of grave abuses which the Bill as it stands leaves wide open. I shall not repeat the arguments which I advanced on Clause 41, but there is a very substantial danger that an employer could seek to promote a tame company union, or a tame union, to be the sole bargaining agent.
      Although the Solicitor-General will no doubt point out that the C.I.R. is unlikely enthusiastically to recommend such a union, there have been many situations in which employers have successfully promoted amongst their staff a trade union which was very subservient to the employers' interests.
      When speaking earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that the union that would be appointed must be independent. I was hesitant to contradict him at that time, but I was delighted a few minutes ago to hear him conceding that there is no provision in the Bill as it stands to ensure that the sole bargaining agent is an independent union, and that he is now proposing to ensure at the Report stage that Amendments to guarantee the independence of the unions will be introduced.
      But the definition of "independent" contained in Clause 148 is not by any means sufficiently watertight. The wording is:
      "'independent', in relation to a trade union or other organisation of workers, means not under the domination or control of an employer or of a group of employers or of one or more organisations of employers;"
      Presumably there is no case law at present on the subject of what "domina-
      404
      tion or control" means precisely with regard to trade unions. But if one has a union even with a wholly independent executive or with a majority of elected representatives, say, seven elected representatives and five representatives appointed by the employer on its executive, it would still come within the definition of "independent" contained in Clause 148. Even if one has a union with a wholly elected executive, if they were, for example, elected for very long periods, it is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that trade union officials are no more immune from gradual weakening of resolution than anyone else. There are great incentives for an employer to get a quiescent trade union appointed as a sole bargaining agent with which he can subsequently make legally enforceable collective agreements which are binding on many people who are not and would not wish to be members of the trade union concerned, but who wished to belong to another union which was prohibited from getting itself put forward as an alternative bargaining agent.
      I urge the Government to accept the Amendment, which would remove from these provisions the dangers of the most serious abuses. Many abuses would remain, but the most serious is that of the employer promoting a tame union. The Amendment is designed to ensure that that cannot occur.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We have had a good deal of discussion, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to be very concerned about tame unions or unions tied to the skirts of employers. I should have thought that Mr. Clive Jenkins was getting rid of a great many of them. His activities in recent years been been quite effective in increasing the size of his own union. Because we believe that trade unions are effective if they are well organised, we have no complaint about that. Indeed, I understand that employers have not complained in some of the establishments where Mr. Jenkins has gained a footing.
      There is a danger that we may have from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the suggestion that they are concerned about tame unions when what they are concerned about is the possibility of smaller unions developing at the expense of some of the bigger ones. We

      405
      on this side of the Committee have no such inhibition. We believe in competition between unions just as much as anywhere else. If some of the smaller unions grow and become more effective, that is all to the good. I have in mind some of the white-collar technical unions, for instance. If trade unions are efficient and give good service to their members, they cannot be tame unions. No employer will be able to hold a union in his grasp if it is known that another union is knocking on the door and can offer to the work people concerned a service which is better than that being provided by what might be a house union.
      Whatever may be said by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and however they may criticise what they feel are the disadvantages of the Bill, it also gives many advantages, some but not all of which were contained in their own proposals. The advantages are greater than the disadvantages and, if trade unions are strengthened, they will be more able to give the kind of service to their members which will make tame or house unions completely obsolete.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). When the Committee considered the last group of Amendments, the Government's answers to the straight question of the difference that registration makes were totally obscure.
      It will not have escaped the notice of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the trade unions are not altogether enamoured with much of this proposed legislation. On balance, it may be that a number of important trade unions will decide not to register. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but it may be that the General Council will recommend that unions should not register. If that happens, I do not see how the legislation can function. However, such a state of affairs will bring very much to the forefront what are the advantages of registration.
      Listening to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am still not clear what the advantages are. One hon. Member on the back benches opposite said that his party did not seek to take away any of the rights of trade unions, even if they
      406
      did not register. If that is so, what is the point of registration?
      These are points which the Government have not yet made clear. Taking the engineering industry as an example, let us suppose that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions decides that it will not register. The position will be reached where an employer makes a recommendation about the type of union which shall constitute the sole bargaining agent. There will be the three parties: the trade unions, the employers and the Secretary of State. There will be no recommendation from any trade union. There will be a recommendation from an employer, and it may be that what has been described as a tame house union will be put forward by the employer as the sole union with which he wants to bargain. Therefore, we shall be inviting industrial strife on a very wide scale if an employer's recommendation of that kind of union as the sole bargaining agent is to be accepted. Even if the unions are not desirous of registering, it would be far better, from the Government's point of view, to put the onus on them of suggesting the bargaining agent rather than the employer.
      10.0 p.m.
      I think that the Amendment, which seeks to delete the grave dangers which nomination by an employer in these conditions would bring, is, certainly from my angle, important and, from the Government's angle, well worth consideration.
      The Government could help if they were more precise in defining whether registration is to be considered as a prime factor in determining who shall be the sole bargaining agent. Given two bona fide unions, affiliated to the T.U.C., as it were, running neck and neck on the numbers employed, and so on, if one were registered and the other were not, would that be the determining factor in the eyes of the Government as to which should get the right of negotiation?
      We have not had answers to points like this. Instead, we hear about the virtues of principles. I remind the Government about a famous Irishman who suggested that there are times when a man must rise above principle. I think that this is such an occasion. Unless and until we get answers to some of

      407
      these points I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
      Mr. Gower: It seems that if we abstracted from the Bill "(b) an employer" and the qualifying part of subsection (3) we should be restricting the power to make such an application to a trade union and to the Secretary of State. I suggest that there may be occasions on which it might be a great advantage for the employer to have this additional power. I appreciate why the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has his doubts about the additional power, and he has explained them.
      I am sure that we can all imagine cases in which a reasonably efficient staff association could fulfil admirably most of the functions of a trade union. I accept that it would be undesirable in some cases that there should be a tame staff association or union which was unduly dominated by the employer. But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out on an earlier Clause, if such an organisation were to be brought within the ambit of the Clause and to obtain these rights, it is inconceivable that it would subsequently obtain the registration which it needed to fulfil those powers.
      In the other Clauses dealing with registration, he will see that, to carry out effectively the powers sought under this subsection, the association which he describes as tame would need to apply for registration. As my right hon. Friend said, in those circumstances, it is not conceivable that such an association, dominated by an employer, would fulfil the requirements. This additional power could be effectively used by some employers. They could apply on behalf of valid unions which would fulfil a valid function. It would weaken the Clause to take out these words.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: Clause 42 deals with proposals for recognition of a sole bargaining agent, which is defined in Clause 41(c) as one of the work people in the unit referred to there. It seems completely outwith any concept of industrial relations that the sole bargaining agent should be at any time at the behest of an employer. The definition is concerned
      408
      solely with the employee's interests, so I see no case for an employer being able to determine the sole bargaining agency, except under the conditions to which my hon. Friend referred.
      In other words, the only case for giving an employer this right is when the employer decides that he wants a tame union of the company type which has bedevilled the trade union movement, particularly in some of the professional spheres to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) referred when talking about Clive Jenkins.
      If the Under-Secretary could tell me some circumstances in which it can legitimately be argued that an employer could advance a case for this nomination, I might be convinced. Unless we are very careful, and unless the Amendment is accented, we shall have the situation in which an employer desires to have a tame union or a company union and a measurable number of employees will resist. If an employer takes advantage of the opportunity afforded to him under the Measure to nominate the sole bargaining agency, whether it is a professional or industrial type of unit that he represents, inevitably the lads will want to have a union of their own, as distinct from the employer's union, and we shall have industrial conflict.
      Can the Under-Secretary tell me the kind of case that can be argued for any employer to nominate the sole bargaining agency of a trade union? I know that there is identity of interest on both sides of industry, to a given point, as I have argued for 15 years as a trade union official. But beyond that point the interests diverge. Any employer who suggests that he could even nominate the sole bargaining agency for his employees is presumptuous in the extreme.
      If the Under-Secretary's explanation is not adequate and he does not resolve here and now the problem of the discrepancy between affording an employer the opportunity to nominate the bargaining agency and the definition of a bargaining agency in Clause 41, I shall keep him a long time on the issue. It is fundamental to the rights of people in industry that they should be able to determine the persons and organisations who shall represent them.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): There are perhaps some misunderstandings about the idea that employers should be entitled to apply for a reference to the N.I.R.C. The Government feel that it is right and proper that there should be provision for employers to be able to apply for references alongside trade unions and the Secretary of State. This is a means of getting problems sorted out by an independent body. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) laughs, but the C.I.R. is designated as an independent source. [Interruption.] We shall debate the C.I.R. at a different time. I am telling the Committee that it is an independent source. In effect, where there is difficulty the employer can put forward his case via the Industrial Relations Court to the C.I.R. and have matters sorted out for him. I stress to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that this is not a question of nomination. It is a question of application. It raises the question of who should be the bargaining agent, but it is not the employer who will decide that.
      The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) asked what would happen where a registered union and a non-registered union competed in these circumstances, and whether the registered union would win. In effect, it is a decision that the C.I.R. will have to make. It might recommend the formation of a joint panel, but in due course the unregistered union could not enjoy the rights under Clause 46 unless it became registered.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we might have a joint panel of registered and unregistered workers. What would happen if, at the end of the day, there were an official dispute and the panel decided to declare a strike? Are we to have a situation in which members of registered trade unions are protected by virtue of being registered but those belonging to an organisation of workers are not protected because they are not a registered trade union?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The panel could obtain recognition only if all its members were registered.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is saying that in fact it would not be recognised.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: As I said, I think that the C.I.R. could put this particular point forward.
      The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), moved the Amendment fairly and I would have appreciated his point if we had not had the previous debate. I think he now sees that there are adequate provisions to eliminate any idea of tame trade unions. As we have said before, and as I now repeat, the C.I.R. is unlikely to recommend recognition of a tame union. My right hon. Friend has said that there is no intention on our part to encourage or to allow tame unions, but he is going to look at the matter further and establish the fact that independent organisations of workers will be the ones which will qualify.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he thinks there is no provision that stipulates a union nominated by an employer? He says that it is not a matter for nomination but for the C.I.R. In fact the provisions as they stand refer to
      "organisations of workers specified…"
      in the employers' organisation or negotiating panel. Does he confirm that it will be the employers who will be nominating the unions to be considered and that it is open to the employers to nominate unregistered unions because there is no provision in the Bill to restrict them from doing so?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that. But it is for the C.I.R. to make a decision. My right hon. Friend made it clear in the last debate that the question of organisations of workers will be looked at in relation to their being independent. We maintain that the definition "independent" is the right one, but if the Committee feels that it is not the right definition we can discuss it on Clause 148. But I must point out that, if hon. Members feel that "independent" is wrong, in the Labour Government's Bill the term "independent" defined independent trade unions. I thought that that definition was appropriate.
      Mr. Harold Walker: We must have one point to which the hon. Gentleman referred made quite clear. Will he make it clear, one way or the other, whether a joint negotiating body can be made up of registered and unregistered organisations of workers? He did say once that this could be so and then he seemed to leave the thing in the air.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: It can be put forward in that way but it can only apply for statutory recognition if all the members are registered. That is the situation. We have taken the point put forward by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) about tame unions and there is no intention to encourage them. My right hon. Friend will deal with this on Report. If the hon. Gentleman is still doubtful we can debate this on further occasions.
      There are reasons why employers should be allowed to apply for references—very rare and complex situations in conditions of inter-union rivalry when an employer might legitimately wish to protect himself against either one or other of the unions not being willing to apply to the N.I.R.C. In that situation, with strife and chaos evolving, an employer might want to take action and make the application to the N.I.R.C. What we are trying to achieve is orderly procedures, and an improvement in industrial relations. In difficult circumstances, which may be comparatively rare, it is right that the employer should be able to make application. In view of the assurances given in a previous debate I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: There is one point with which the hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Is there any reason why, in the circumstances he has outlined, in which an employer might wish to get this question clarified, he should not make a reference to the Secretary of State who could then make a reference to the Court if he considers the circumstances appropriate?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: That would lead to a political decision and we do not think that is necessarily right. The various parties enumerated should be able to go to an independent organisation like the C.I.R. [Interruption.] That is my view and I am entitled to put it forward.
      412
      It is better for this to be decided upon by the C.I.R. in the circumstances.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: The reply to this short debate has been most unsatisfactory—in fact it has been pathetic. The Minister has not answered one point raised from this side of the Committee. I put my question to him again: what would happen if an employer referred to the Commission a case in which he had two trade unions operating in his establishment, one a registered trade union, the other an unregistered trade union, and the Commission decided that there should be a joint negotiating body composed of representatives in equal numbers from the registered and unregistered unions?
      What would be the position of those organisations under this Clause? For example, if there were an industrial dispute, one would have the protection of the Bill and the other would be outside it. The whole of its funds would be at risk if it engaged in an industrial dispute. Is this not an impossible situation for any trade union to contemplate?
      The Minister will not say that most of the unions would be registered, because my information is that the majority will not register, and as a consequence there will be all sorts of difficulties if we proceed along these lines. We are entitled to have an explanation of this Clause. If it were possible to psychoanalyse the mind of an employer then we would know the reason for the Clause—it enables an employer to make an application to the Commission for sole bargaining rights.
      It seems that the friends of hon. Members opposite have told them that the motor car industry has to negotiate with 22 unions, whereas in Germany the negotiations are with one union. The motor car industry wants to know why it cannot negotiate with one union in this country. This is an attempt to get sole bargaining rights in the hands of one or two big unions.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know nothing about industrial relations, cannot understand the evolution of the trade union movement in this country. In Germany the trade unions were restarted with a clean slate in 1945, on the advice of the British T.U.C. It was decided that there should be 12 trade unions and it was all planned. But in this country trade

      413
      unions have been evolving for 150 years. There was the growth of craft trade unions. Then with the great conurbations the great national institutions arose, and the industrial unions. With the rise of new industries came new unions with hundreds of different practices, different rules and so on. The trade union movement in Britain cannot be treated in the same way as the trade union movement in Germany. We did not start with a clean slate.
      We are left with eleven million people organised on traditional lines. The trade union movement cannot be unified into one or two bargaining units in each factory because of its evolution. If the psychology behind this Bill is to try to coerce the trade union movement into bigger conurbations and so reduce the number of unions, it will not work.
      The greatest factor against it working is that no one has continuity of employment. It might work with stable employment and if a man could be guaranteed his job throughout his working life. But electricians, clerical workers and draughtsmen may have between a dozen and 20 employers during their working life, there is no stability, and therefore there must be craft unions to cater for craftsmen who move from factory to factory and from institution to institution.
      The Minister has not replied to the question raised by my hon. Friends of what the employer would do if he had the opportunity of nominating his bargaining unit. We have asked what would
      414
      happen to the company union, the staff association, the house union or the compliant union which, in the striking language of our American cousins, is called an organisation that signs "sweethearting" contracts with employers. As set out in the Clause, employers have the right to nominate this type of union to the Commission in the hope that it will be accepted as a stooge to negotiate in place of the real trade union.
      In many establishments trade unions only have a foothold, where only 25 or 30 per cent. of the employees are organised, but the employers have to recognise their right to bargain at the moment. If they are given the opportunity of opting for something else, they will disregard the trade unions which are building up their membership.
      It is sensible not to allow the employers to pick the agents they want who would accquiesce in their demands. The trade union movement is a movement of struggle. We do not ask for rights or privileges. We fought for our rights and privileges. We have sacrificed, starved and died for our privileges. We do not come cap in hand asking for privileges from the employers. We have reached our present establishment of eleven million organised workers by fighting for the rights of working people and we have established these rights by building up a strong organisation. This legislation is aimed at weakening the organisation, and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee on this issue.
      10.30 p.m.
      [MR. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      Mr. Loughlin: I am glad the Secretary of State has now come into the Chamber. He will be aware that I raised certain matters with the Under-Secretary of State, whose reply was inadequate. Indeed, he seemed reluctant to give way.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I gave way about five or six times. I rarely if ever speak in this House without giving way. If I do not give way, it is usually because of pressure of time.
      Mr. Loughlin: I thought the hon. Gentleman gave way twice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] At any rate, he refused to give way to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] Well, we all think we should be given way to. HANSARD will prove how many times the hon. Gentleman gave way.
      The hon. Gentleman argued that an employer should have the right to protect himself. Then he made the revealing statement that we were dealing with the right of trade unions to be the sole bargaining agency, and I quoted to him the definition of "sole bargaining agent" in Clause 41. Of course, the purpose of a trade union is to safeguard its members and, if it is to do so properly, obviously it has to be independent of the employers. Short of that situation, it cannot safeguard those rights.
      What right has any employer to be the arbiter as to who should be the sole bargaining agent. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not such a right."] But he nominates. I want to be brief, but I will try to explain the situation for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Clause 42 says
      "An application under this section may be made to the Industrial Court by any of the following parties that is to say—
      (a) one or more trade unions…".
      That is the issue. If the employer makes an application and the Industrial Court agrees, it means that the employer is the arbiter, as I argued in the first instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Of course it does. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be a little sensible about this. I have been very lucky. I have been on the management side, as well as on the trade union side, and I was
      416
      on the former before I was a trade union official.
      Mr. Scott: It is clear from Clause 45 that the only arbiter in this matter is the general wishes of the employees concerned. That is what is being built into this part of the Bill, and that is the only thing to be borne in mind.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am dealing with Clause 42, which is three Clauses before Clause 45. I have been in this House for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—It may be too long for some hon. Members, but it is not too long for me, and I shall be here for many years more than some of those who have recently come into the House. I am more egotistical than some of the newcomers.
      We are dealing with Clause 42. Once we pass this Clause and the Amendments to it. Clause 45 will be of no consequence. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any circumstances in which the employer has the right to determine which trade union organisation shall be the sole bargaining agency in the unit?
      Mr. R. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer is "No"; nor does the Bill provide for that.
      Mr. Loughlin: That is what the Bill says. We have met this problem time and again. I should like to know the legal definition of "an employer". The sooner the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the Bill on the ground that it is incomprehensible to the ordinary person, or that the words in the Bill are indefinite and indecisive, the better it will be for us all.
      Mr. Heller: I think that we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) for putting down these Amendments, because they have revealed once again that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite either do not understand their Bill, or they have got themselves into an extremely confused situation.
      In replying to the debate the Minister said that we could have a joint panel of either registered or unregistered trade unions—meaning organisations of workers, a mix, a joint panel. I want the hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said.

      417
      Is that what he means? Is that the position? If he does mean that, then he does not understand the Bill, because the Bill does not say anything of the kind, and this is one further example of the complete confusion into which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting the Committee and the country with this Measure.
      A little earlier, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) who raised a point about "independent" and said that an organisation of workers could be recognised as a sole bargaining agent, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government do not really mean that, because once it becomes the sole bargaining agent it must be a registered trade union. The Bill does not say that.
      The Solicitor-General: The distinction, which is plain throughout, and consistent with the point of principle made by my right hon. Friend is that the Commission is encouraged to put forward a union, or an organisation of workers, a joint panel, one or the other, registered or unregistered, of the unions and organisations to be found in the plant or unit. The Commission is encouraged to put forward whatever solution seems most likely to produce a reasonable bargaining situation. That is the position arrived at up till Clause 45. The only point at which those bodies must register is when under Clause 46, whether separately or jointly, they seek to claim their new statutory rights to enforce that solution upon that employer. It is at that point that Clause 46 requires them to be registered, entirely consistently with the proposition that the new rights should be in line with registration.
      Mr. Heffer: That is fine. Let us suppose that this procedure is followed whereby an organisation of workers, because the application has been made by the employer or by the Secretary of State, is referred to the C.I.R. and the C.I.R. decides that it should be recognised as the sole bargaining agent. Then the Solicitor-General says that under Clause 46 at that stage it must become a registered trade union. Let us suppose we have gone right through this procedure and the organisation represents a great body of opinion amongst the workers; it has the majority in the ballot. What happens if the organisation decides that
      418
      it does not want to become a registered trade union? Hon. Gentlemen reveal stage by stage how impossibly idiotic the Bill is.
      The Solicitor-General: Before that organisation can then claim the new statutory right, it is required to register. That is entirely consistent with the principle my right hon. Friend enunciated and with the principle set out in paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife".
      "The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period.… Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board."
      We believe that rather than impose financial penalties upon unions that fail to register it is right to encourage them to do so by giving them the benefit of the new statutory position.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman is like the rabbit before the stoat; every time he thinks about "In Place of Strife" he is petrified. He cannot get beyond thinking about "In Place of Strife". I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman begins to think about his Bill, because it is his Bill that is being put before the country and which will apply to the trade union movement. I therefore suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman answers the points that arise on the Bill. I should like answers to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends and which have not been satisfactorily answered.
      I ask my hon. Friends to vote for these Amendments, because the Amendments are absolutely right.
      In his Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) says that we should eliminate the employer. I agree entirely. [Laughter.] It seems that many employers are eliminating themselves by bad management. Perhaps we will not need to put them out of business, because they are putting themselves out of business. I am talking about the words "an employer", which the Amendment proposes to delete. It should be removed because as long as it is in the Bill there must be the suspicion in the mind of the entire trade union movement that it is possible for an employer to make an

      419
      application for a tame union, a house union or a company union, whatever it may be called, which is acceptable to the employer and to no one else. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is wrong."] If we are wrong, why have the provision in the Bill? Why not accept the Amendment? If our suspicions are unjustified, get rid of them by deleting this provision.
      Mr. Loughlin: The Ministers should read their own Bill.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: If the purpose is not to make provision for the possible acceptance of house unions, would the Minister give the reasons why an employer must make the application or can make the application? If the purpose is not to assist a house, company or tame union, why not allow the organisation of workers to make the application in addition to the trade union? That is the fundamental question. It has not been answered and I should like to hear a positive answer to it.
      Mr. R. Carr: I forget whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was here, but if he was he must have forgotten that earlier this evening I gave an undertaking that I would make it clear—I think it is clear, but if there is any doubt I will make it doubly clear—by introducing an Amendment in the appropriate place saying that the C.I.R. cannot recommend as sole bargaining agent anything but an independent organisation—
      Mr. Loughlin: Why not set it out in the Bill?
      Mr. Carr: I will not accept the Amendment because we believe that employers as well as trade unions and the Secretary of State should have the right to initiate this procedure. We have explained why we think that three parties—the Secretary of State, the trade union and the employer—should have the right to initiate this procedure. Although I believe it is sure, I am prepared to make it doubly sure that the C.I.R. cannot recommend other than an independent organisation of workers as the sole bargaining agent. I think that that is the assurance for which the Opposition ask.
      Mr. Heffer: It is not.
      Mr. McNamara: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has given way or not, but what he has said is that he will give an undertaking that the C.I.R. will recognise only an independent organisation of workers as the sole bargaining agent. Unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber when this commotion was started by the Under-Secretary of State. We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by an "organisation of workers". Does he mean a registered trade union? Confusion has been worse confounded by three contradictory statements. The first came from the Under-Secretary of State. Then the Solicitor-General made his unhelpful contribution and said that it could be recognised as the sole bargaining agent but when it started to exercise its rights it would have to register. Then the Secretary of State spoke.
      We should have an answer to this point. If the Secretary of State cannot give it, there is only one other Minister who has not spoken, and that is the Minister of State. Perhaps he could throw in his hat and let us know the answer.
      Mr. Carr: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not listen or does not want to hear, but this point has been answered several times this evening. However, I will answer it again. We have said that we see no reason why the C.I.R. should not put forward for recognition as a sole bargaining agent an unregistered organisation of workers providing it is an independent one. If that unregistered organisation of workers which has been put forward by the C.I.R. for recognition then wishes to take its legal right under this Clause it must get itself registered. If it does not, it has its rights but not the legal sanctification and strength behind it, because it should be a registered body to take this extra legal right. The only object of allowing the C.I.R. to put forward an unregistered organisation as long as it is independent, is to give the opportunity to such a body to move into that position. Then if it wishes its de facto position to be strengthened by the new statutory right, it must get itself registered.
      Mr. Harold Walker: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has missed the point. The Under-Secretary, when

      421
      replying earlier to my hon. Friend, said that a joint negotiating panel could consist of a mix of both registered and unregistered unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is asking whether we are to understand that this is the case or did the Under-Secretary make, perhaps, a pardonable slip of the tongue or an error.
      Mr. McNamara: I have obtained from HANSARD a proof copy of what was said by the Under-Secretary. He said:
      "The panel…"
      that is, the joint panel—
      "…could only obtain recognition if all its members were registered."
      I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was saying that it would not be recognised. The Under-Secretary has said that the C.I.R. could put this point forward.
      Mr. R. Carr: That is absolutely right.
      Mr. McNamara: We do not know where we are. The right hon. Gentleman is saying "Absolutely right", and I am saying that the Under-Secretary said:
      "The panel could only obtain recognition if all its members were registered."
      That presumably means that a joint panel coming from a factory could only be recognised if all its members were in registered trade unions. Immediately after my interjection, the Under-Secretary says that that is not a fact. Now he says that if they do that and we have one which is unregistered recognised, when it comes to the question of being recognised and exercising any powers it has by virtue of being recognised, it cannot exercise those powers because it is unregistered. This is nonsense.
      Mr. R. Carr: It is not nonsense. First, let me deal with the case of a single body recommended for recognition. If that body wishes then to acquire the new statutory right to recognition, it must get itself registered. The C.I.R. can also put forward a joint panel as its proposed bargaining agent. If that joint panel contains any unregistered members, then if that joint panel wants to have its statutory right to recognition—as opposed to any de facto right it may enjoy—all its members must be registered. If a bargaining agent, either a single organisation or a joint panel, thinks it of value
      422
      to have this new statutory right to recognition, then it must be registered.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear what an organisation of workers recommended by the C.I.R. under Clause 45 would need to do to have the statutory rights to which he refers? Would it still have the right to make collective bargains legally enforceable on behalf of the employees concerned? Whether or not the matter went to the court under Clause 46, what requirements for registration arise under Clause 47?
      Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the sole bargaining agent recommended by the C.I.R. under Clause 45 would have the power to make legally enforceable bargains, and that it would not be necessary for it to become registered?
      Mr. R. Carr: I am not sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman's point? I think that the answer to his question is "Yes". The body could have the right, if it wished, to make a legally binding agreement without having to have its statutory right.
      Mr. Sillars: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General saying that under Clause 46 an unregistered organisation could not make an application. Clause 46(1)(b) says:
      "…the trade union or joint negotiating panel, as the case may be, may make an application to the Industrial Court under this section."
      The words used are "joint negotiating panel", and they are extremely important. There is a vast difference between those words and the words "joint negotiating panel of trade unions", which deal with registered organisations.
      Are we to take it that an unregistered organisation cannot make application to the court to have an agreement imposed which gives it sole bargaining rights, but that an unregistered organisation can make application to the court in respect of a registered organisation? That is what the Clause seems to mean. We are entitled to an explanation.
      Mr. Orme: If the Secretary of State says that he is looking into the possibility of meeting the point raised about the independent organisation of workers at the C.I.R. end, what is his objection

      423
      to meeting it at the beginning? If that body is not to have any standing before the C.I.R. and will be ruled out, why should it be possible for that organisation to be sent there by an employers' body?
      Then we have all this confusion about joint negotiating bodies, unions which are registered, and unions which are not registered. I can see the intention here. There might be mixed bodies of registered and unregistered unions, but, as Clause 46 says, it will not be possible for the unregistered bodies to operate. I get that message clearly. But why is the Minister still reticent about the employers' attitude? He has heard from my hon. Friends how we feel that employers have no right to refer a trade union in the first place. What is it to do with an employer? We have made that point. We say that the employer has no right, and we remind the Government of the way in which, in the United States, this principle has been used continuously to refer bogus organisations solely in order to clog the machinery and stop the recognition of bona fide trade unions.
      The Solicitor-General: Although the hon. Gentleman has valiantly criticised these proposals, I think that he has put himself on record as saying that the Bill published by the last Government was a good one. Will he explain—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have now heard the Solicitor-General refer at least a dozen times to a Bill which is not before the Committee. He persists in going into the details of a Bill which is not before us. May I ask you, Mr. Mallalieu, to rule that even the hon. and learned Gentleman is not allowed to discuss not only a Clause or Amendment which is not before the Committee, but a Bill which was not even presented to the House?
      11.0 p.m.
      The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Loughlin: Further to that—
      The Temporary Chairman: This is not a point of order.
      Mr. Loughlin: May I say that it is, with all due respect to you—
      Hon. Members: Wasting time.
      Mr. Loughlin: Shut up. I do not want to delay the Committee because we have a lot of work to do, but it is surely in order on a point of order for—
      The Temporary Chairman: I have ruled that that is not a point of order. Mr. Orme—
      Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin rose——
      The Temporary Chairman: I have called Mr. Orme.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry. I did not realise that.
      Mr. Orme: If the Solicitor-General repeats that statement outside I know what action to take. Can he quote the point he makes about the previous Bill? We are not discussing it. I have been highly critical of some past actions, but the Opposition are united in opposing the present proposals and nothing he and his hon. Friends are doing to try to drive a wedge will succeed because we find their proposals completely nauseating.
      The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General rose——
      Mr. Loughlin: Just clear the matter up.
      The Solicitor-General: If I may put the question, notwithstanding the intermittent observations of an occasional visitor from Cardiff, South-East. In reply to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), it is the case that the last Government's Bill recognised the right—
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      The Solicitor-General: —of an employer to restrict the choice of trade unions——
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalicu. We want you to look at this again. Here we have the Solicitor-General not mentioning a Bill in passing but quoting from a Bill, and not for the first time, but continuously quoting a Bill which is not before the House and which has not been before the House. Is it in order on a Bill at Committee stage for the Solicitor-General or anyone else to do this? 1 have been told that one can discuss in Committee only what is on the Order Paper and

      425
      selected by the Chair at the time, an Amendment or Clause to a Bill which has received its Second Reading. The Bill the Solicitor-General keeps quoting has never received a Second Reading.
      The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has not quoted from anything which is not relevant to anything going on in Committee at the present time.
      Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. Do I take it that once I am called in this debate I am entitled to discuss any Bill that might have been proposed in this House which has not received its Second Reading?
      The Temporary Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will always refer to things which are relevant. That the Solicitor-General has done.
      Mr. Orme: I hope the Solicitor-General will withdraw the remarks he is trying to attribute to me, which are not correct. I would ask the Solicitor-General and the Minister, instead of laughing about this matter, to answer the questions posed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are entitled to have answers to these questions tonight. We have had utter confusion from the Government; they have delayed the debate by not being able to answer the questions which we have posed. I call on the Solicitor-General or the right hon. Gentleman to stand up now and to answer the points which have been put.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: The Secretary of State knows that he is on a hook. We are not going to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of getting off it so easily. We want a reply to the question which has been put. I shall put it again. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order for repetition. If a registered and an unregistered trade union each had an equal number of employees in membership and the Commission decided to set up a joint negotiating committee, would both the registered and the unregistered trade union have recognition from the employer? If they have de facto recognition, would any agreement which they entered into be valid for the members of both the registered and the unregistered trade union? If an unregistered trade union is a valid union for negotiating and obtaining wage increases,
      426
      what is the purpose of registration; what are the disabilities?
      Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General clear up this confusion, because we have had contradictory statements? The Government owe it to the Committee to say where they stand on this issue.
      Mr. R. Carr: I shall try again. The unregistered body has bargaining rights. It does not have to be registered to have bargaining rights. It has to be registered to have certain additional rights, including the statutory right to compel the employer to recognise and negotiate with it. If a union does not wish to have that extra statutory right, then in this context there is no need for it to be registered. If it does want this extra statutory right, there is the need to be registered.
      Mrs. Castle: The position is clear. It means that if the machinery has been gone through for deciding the ideal bargaining unit and the ideal bargaining agent or group of organisations for that unit—the C.I.R. has examined the situation and made a recommendation, there has been a ballot and the vote of the workers has been obtained—and the result is a panel consisting of a registered and an unregistered union, then that ideal bargaining unit must collapse if the unregistered union refuses to register— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it must, because the joint negotiating panel will no longer exist. It will have been divided by this arbitrary law.
      I suggest that we do not waste any more time on the nonsense of this Government. Let us vote for the Amendment.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 288.
      [For Division List 135 see col. 455.]
      The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 717, in page 30, line 6, at end, add:
      (d) an employers' organisation on behalf of one or more of its members.
      standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton).
      Mr. Tom Normanton: Amendment No. 717 is a twin to an

      427
      Amendment in similar terms which I moved to Clause 35 and which was rejected by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. It therefore, I sincerely regret to say, stands isolated and is now of relatively small relevance to the major theme we are debating. Without in any way minimising or with-drawing anything I said in moving the Amendment to Clause 35, or minimising what I still believe to be relevant in Amendment No. 717, I feel that I have no alternative but not to move it.
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move Amendment No. 714: In page 31, line 11, at end insert:
      (5) The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section otherwise than by the Secretary of State unless, before the application was made notice of the proposal to make it had been given to the Secretary of State; and where such a notice has been given —

      (a) the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the party or parties giving the notice and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement between them with respect to the matters to which the application would relate and for that purpose may refer any question relating to those matters to the Commission for examination by them, but

      (b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party or parties giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given.

      The effect is to provide that the National Industrial Relations Court shall not entertain any application under Clause 42 unless notice of the application has first been made to the Secretary of State, who will thus be given the opportunity to conciliate. It is complementary to the similar Amendment which I moved to Clause 35. The purpose is simply to emphasise that statutory references should be seen as a last resort after voluntary efforts, including conciliation by my Department, have failed, and therefore the objective is to avoid unnecessary references to the Court and onwards to the C.I.R.
      The Amendment was prompted by a suggestion made to me by Mr. George Woodcock and I have heard from him that he much welcomes the fact that I have felt able to put it on the Order Paper.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 290, Noes 254.
      [For Division List 136 see col. 461.]
      Question put, That the Clause, amended, stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 288, Noes, 257.
      [For Division List 137 see col. 465.]
      Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

    Clause 43

      REFERENCE TO COMMISSION ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 42
      11.45 p.m.
      Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move Amendment No. 509: In page 31, line 40, at end add:
      (4) The question to be determined by the Commission and to be specified, under this section, by the Industrial Court shall include the following matters—

      (a) the bargaining unit, or bargaining units, which should, in the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, and

      (b) the organisation of workers or the joint negotiating panel which should, in the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit or for each of those bargaining units.

      The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take with this Amendment Amendments No. 524, in line 40, at end add:
      (4) The question to be specified by the Industrial Court under this section shall include the following matters for determination by the Commission—

      (a)the bargaining unit, or bargaining units, which should, m the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, and

      (b) the organisation of workers or the joint negotiating panel which should, in the view of the Commission, be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit or for each of those bargaining units.

      No. 510, in Clause 45, page 33, line 20, at end insert:
      (3) A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend that a bargaining unit should be recognised by the employer, or by the two or more associated employers, if both professional employees and employees who are not professional employees are comprised in that bargaining unit unless it appears to the Commission—

      (a) that this would be in accordance with the general wishes of the professional employees comprised in that bargaining unit, and

      (b) that it would promote a lasting and satisfactory settlement of the question in issue in the reference.

      No. 511, in line 29, at end insert:
      (5) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation whose members are wholly professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.
      No. 526, in line 29, at end insert:
      (5) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation of which all the members are professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.
      No. 527, in line 30, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert:
      'subsection (4) and subsection (5)'.
      No. 656, in line 39, at end insert:
      (c) whether it represents workers who by virtue of their profession or the nature of their employment have such special responsibility towards the public or their employers that they ought to be separately represented.
      No. 513, in Clause 48, page 36, line 9, after 'unit', insert:
      'or in the particular section of it to which the applicant belongs'.
      No. 514, in Clause 49, page 36, line 40, at end insert:
      (4) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation whose members are wholly professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.
      No. 529, in page 36, line 40, at end insert:
      (4) In the performance of their functions under this section the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of a professional employee being represented in collective bargaining, if he so desires, by an organisation
      430
      of which all the members are professional persons or by a joint negotiating panel which includes at least one such organisation.
      No. 518, in Clause 148, page 103, line 12, at end insert:
      'Professional person' means a person—

      (a) who holds a professional qualification related to the work in which he is engaged being a qualification conferred by a professional qualifying body, and

      (b) who is required to abide by rules of professional conduct placing upon him a particular responsibility for the safeguard of the public interest

      and shall include a worker who is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person with the intention of obtaining such professional qualification.
      'Professional qualifying body' means any body which confers qualifications recognising the possession by the holder of knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction and study in or with an institution of higher learning or a hospital as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or training in the performance of routine mental, manual or physical processes.
      'Professional employee' means a professional person who is a worker.
      No. 533, in page 103, line 12, at end insert:
      'Professional person' means a person—

      (a) who holds a professional qualification related to the work in which he is engaged being a qualification conferred by a professional qualifying body, and

      (b) who is required to abide by rules of professional conduct placing upon him a particular responsibility for the safeguard of the public interest

      and shall include a worker who is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person with the intention of obtaining such professional qualification.
      'Professional qualifying body' means a body which confers qualifications legally or customarily necessary for engaging in occupations involving a high degree of judgment and special knowledge and which are conferred after completion of prescribed courses of intellectual disciplines and after examination.
      'Professional employee' means a professional person who is a worker.
      11.45 p.m.
      Dame Irene Ward: I think that the Amendment is quite clear. It is in my name, but there is a large measure of support for it from my hon. Friends, and in view of the lateness of the hour all I want to know is whether the Secretary of State will accept it. As I am restraining myself from making a speech, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
      Mr. R. Carr: The brevity of my hon. Friend puts me in a testing position. I cannot be quite as brief, nor can I go as far as my hon. Friend would like me to and accept these Amendments, but I hope that I can, nevertheless, say something which will be of considerable help to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), to many other of my hon. Friends, to, I hope, some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to many people outside the House who share the views and motives which have led my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to table these Amendments.
      I understand and appreciate the reason why it is felt that the agency shop and bargaining unit provisions as they stand should include some special safeguards for professionally qualified people. I have received representations on this point from a number of quarters, and I have listened carefully to them, but I do not think that it is possible for the Government to accept these Amendments in the form in which they have been put forward, because I am convinced that in this form they could jeopardise one of the fundamental aims of the Bill; namely, the need to avoid fragmentation of the bargaining structure, which is one of the problems in industry, and one which we must not aggravate.
      I also have very much in mind the fact that whereas the professional workers have a problem, with which I have some sympathy, that problem arises not so much from the fact that they are professional workers, as from the fact that in the circumstances which concern them they are quite small minorities embedded in a larger majority in a working group. Therefore, as I said briefly the other night, anything we do to help here must really be something which is designed to help not only professional workers, and not primarily because they are professional workers, but to make sure that in dealing with bargaining structure, appointing bargaining units and agents, we take proper account of minorities of workers, whoever they may be, embedded in a larger group of workers of a different nature, with different interests, different purposes and functions. So we must tackle it from that point of view.
      It is and must be the responsibility of the C.I.R. to determine, in the light of all the circumstances, what is likely to
      432
      prove the most acceptable, satisfactory and lasting solution to disputes about the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent. Experience both in this country and certainly in North America amply confirms the conclusion that hard and fast rules or criteria make it more difficult rather than easier to resolve the wide range of problems that arise.
      Therefore, I do not wish to tie the hands of the C.I.R. by writing strict criteria into the Bill; nor shall we do so. I believe that when we bring forward our code of practice we can give sensible guidance within it which can bear on this problem; but, although influential, the code of practice will be much less rigidly binding than criteria written into the Bill.
      What it is essential to ensure is that, dependent as we shall be upon the wisdom, skill and foresight of the C.I.R., the C.I.R. in its composition is fully representative of people with experience of all the problems with which they have to deal. Although it would be wrong to set up the C.I.R. or any similar body on a strictly representative basis, and I do not want to have on the C.I.R. people who are there as members for this interest of that interest—that would be wrong—nevertheless it is important to ensure that the C.I.R. includes amongst its membership those who are experienced in all these matters.
      It will be my intention to ensure that the C.I.R. contains amongst its membership one or more members who will be fully conversant with the needs, problems, ethics, functions and all the rest, of professional workers of all kinds.
      I am also prepared to consider very carefully the possibility of moving on Report an Amendment—not to this Clause, but to Clause 45—which could offer some further guidance to the C.I.R. in deciding the scope of appropriate bargaining units. Clause 45(4) specifies two matters which the C.I.R. must in particular consider in determining matters concerning the recognition of an organisation of workers or a joint panel as sole bargaining agent. My Amendment would require the C.I.R., in determining whether to make such a recommendation, also to have regard to the minorities which may be in a bargaining unit which it is considering and to the community of interests of different descriptions of

      433
      employees, the nature of the work which these different groups perform, their training, experience and responsibilities, as well as any other matters which the C.I.R. might consider relevant. If when we reach Clause 45 we give that direction to the C.I.R. and we ensure that the C.I.R. is fully representative in its membership, I believe that, without tying its hands, we can give the guidance to the C.I.R. which is necessary to ensure that the interests, not only of professional workers, although of course including professional workers, but also of other minority groups of workers can be properly regarded within the determination of a bargaining unit and the recommendations which the C.I.R. may make about bargaining agents.
      Although I cannot accept these Amendments, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, if I were in Clause 45 to do something along the lines I have suggested and take care of the matter in the code of practice and in the membership of the C.I.R., we would in all reasonable ways be meeting the genuine needs both of professional workers and of any other minority groups of workers embedded in their bargaining units.
      Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman has given a peculiar answer. I welcomed the first part of his speech when he said that he could not accept the Amendment, but it is peculiar of him to talk about Clause 45 on Report when we are going through it under the guillotine in Committee in five minutes' time. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) put down her Amendment because of the Tyneside lock-out of my union, D.A.T.A., and the position of the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers.
      We maintain that D.A.T.A. can recruit up to the top level of chief draughtsmen and high technicians and is perfectly able to negotiate on their behalf. For many years we have never advocated that top executives should join our union, although they have had the benefits of its negotiations in that there has never been a pay increase yet to lower management or technical grades in which the same percentage has not gone to other management grades. If we obtained 10 per cent. increase in pay, these chief draughtsmen and others also obtained
      434
      10 per cent. to maintain differentials. The maintenance of differentials is built into trade union structure and the vast majority of engineers were satisfied with that until 18 months ago, when the U.K.A.P.E. was set up.
      We believe that it is a bosses' union and is financed by bosses' money. It has had a rapid rate of growth to about 30,000 members in the past 18 months. Top class executives are travelling round the country recruiting for it, and someone obviously is paying their salaries and expenses because a campaign of starting off a union through its initial stages costs money. A great deal of time, money and effort is required.
      We think that this is being done for one purpose—to put it bluntly, so that U.K.A.P.E. members can act as strikebreakers, not as blacklegs during a strike because blacklegs have to belong to a union to be classed as that. The members of the U.K.A.P.E. can keep the wheels turning when the rest of the factory is on strike.
      The technicians in industry have a great deal of power because they recruit up to a high level of management. Because of the nature of the job, technical work has to be put into a pipeline, so that drawings done today, for example, will often not reach the shop floor for two months. So if draughtsmen go on strike, it is possible by using the existing supply in the pipeline to keep the shop floor going for as long as two months. We therefore have to pay a high rate of strike pay of £27 10s. a week so that the men can survive, and we have to ensure that no sub-contracting takes place to another firm or ensure that there is insufficient management left in the factory to keep the place going.
      The U.K.A.P.E. virtually says, "No strikes". We had representatives of the organisation visit this House about a month ago, when some of them said that they were proud that they could keep works going and that it was their public duty to maintain them while an official dispute was on. [Interruption.] We now see the difference between the two sides of the Committee. When we pointed out to these people that they were, in effect, prolonging the dispute by enabling the plant to continue with a skeleton staff, they shrugged their shoulders and said

      435
      "So what?". That is their attitude—and not one that they are entitled to more money because they are professionals, since under D.A.T.A., which negotiates for everyone at a plant, they get their increases.
      The U.K.A.P.E. is a bosses' union designed to break strikes. As I have said, because of the nature of the job it is necessary to keep a long pipeline going, and if there is a skeleton staff during a strike, that strike takes very much longer than necessary. That is why we refuse to work with the U.K.A.P.E. It is why D.A.T.A. was locked out at Parsons, near the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, but finall Parsons had to agree that D.A.T.A. would have sole negotiating rights.
      Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward rose——
      Mr. Ashton: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady moved the Amendment. I would give way if we did not have the guillotine. The Government imposed it. We did not. Of necessity, we had to exert pressure on Parsons and suffer a lockout and a cost to our funds of about £200,000 to try to solve the problem and work for the sole negotiating rights we believed necessary. If this Amendment and a series of others were made, it would create chaos. It would not improve industrial relations or stop threatened disputes but would lead to more lock-out than there have been in the past.
      It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The Chairman: The Question is—
      Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward rose—
      The Chairman: Order.
      Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward rose—
      Hon. Members: Sit down.
      The Chairman: The Question is, That the Amendment be made.
      Dame Irene Ward: In view of what has been said from both sides of the
      436
      Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      The Chairman: The Question is, That the Amendment be made.
      Amendment negatived.
      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 258.
      [For Division List 138 see col. 469.]
      Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 44 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 47

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR RECOG NITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 287, Noes 258.
      [For Division List 139 see col. 473.]
      Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 48

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT WITH A VIEW TO WITHDRAWAL OF RECO GNITION
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 287, Noes 258.
      [For Division List 140 see col. 479.]
      Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 51

      UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CON NECTION WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAIN ING PROCEDURES.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 258.
      [For Division 141 see col. 483.]
      Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 52 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 56

      MACHINERY FOR NEGOTIATION UNDER OTHER ENACTMENTS
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 283. Noes 258.
      [For Division List 142 see col. 487.]
      Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th January.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

      VEHICLE (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

        HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [Lords]
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time this day.

  EDUCATION (NORTHERN REGION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]
  12.59 a.m.
  Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this very important question of the need to expand educational opportunities in the Northern Region. We talk a good deal about attracting new industry and creating new job opportunities, and sometimes we are apt to overlook the fact that education has a vital part to play in regional development.
  The Northern Region, for which I have the honour to speak tonight, has in the past made a tremendous contribution to the prosperity of Britain by the inventive genius of its people, coupled with hard, skilful work done in the pits, in the shipyards, in the iron and steel works, and in heavy industries. We are undergoing great changes, with not a little success. Much has been achieved in recent years. During the past five years our roads programme has transformed communications throughout the whole region.
  I came across some statistics recently which greatly interested me and which are relevant to this subject. Two-thirds of the hourly paid workers in the Northern Region are now employed in new industries, as against 40 per cent. only seven years ago. I say this because I do not want people to think that the Northern Region has only a depressing or black picture to present. Indeed, there are sectors of our educational development which compare favourably with those achieved anywhere in the country. Nevertheless, there is much to be done and I believe that education can be the key to our achieving parity with other areas, and in this the Government have direct responsibility.
  The Northern Region, despite high unemployment rates, is still short of certain grades of personnel. Every year hundreds of our schoolchildren leave school at the statutory age and write themselves off far below their full potential. A tragically high proportion—83·9 per cent.—of our school leavers go straight to employment and take no part in higher education. In 1964—when I saw this figure I could hardly believe it—only 24.2 per cent. of

  439
  the children in the Northern Region stayed on at school after the statutory leaving age. That figure had increased to 44·9 per cent. by 1969. I know that the latest figure will reveal an even greater proportion staying on.
  We welcome this vast improvement—it is almost double—in five years under the Labour Administration, but it is still 10 per cent. below the national average, and we will not be satisfied until we match the figure applying for the rest of the nation.
  I could say much about polytechnics, colleges of education, the university at Tees-side, and so on, but in this short debate I will concentrate on education up to the age of 18 and I will deal in the main with the question of provision in schools.
  There is a desperate need for nursery school provision. Far too many children in the whole country—this certainly applies to the Northern Region—begin their school life deprived and handicapped because they have limited access to the spoken word, to books, to pictures, to the kind of environment that would give them a good start in life. I appreciate the contribution made by voluntary playgroups, private nurseries, child minders, and so on, but the need can be met only by a massive extension of local authority nursery schools, particularly in the priority areas.
  I want to make a controversial proposal, although I am confident that the Minister will consider it. I am a teacher and a member of the teachers' union. I have had experience of teaching in a primary school and then of being head of a large primary school in the north. If the alternatives are waiting for years to come for purpose-built nursery schools staffed by fully qualified teachers or using facilities now available, improved by minor works allocation and staffed by qualified teachers available, assisted by ancillaries and even with the help of parents, the latter must have preference. Unless we can do something big and do it now, generations of our schoolchildren will continue to be deprived.
  The Northern Region received one-ninth of the national allocation for educational priority areas. This in itself is an indication of the leeway that has to be made up in the region. I was
  440
  told by the Minister last week that we have 3,877 primary school classes with over 35 pupils, which means that far too many of our children are denied the individual attention so necessary if they are to receive the education they deserve.
  In 1968 a total 45·9 per cent. of our primary schools had been built pre-1902, despite the expenditure by the Labour Government of over £15 million on the primary school building programme. There is no doubt that massive resources are required, including allocation of teachers and the minor works programme. An indication of the willingness of local education authorities to do their share is shown by the expenditure on books, equipment, and so on, for it is higher in the Northern Region than in many others.
  It is at secondary level that we really see the results of the economic history and social character of the region. Despite the fact that the building programme has doubled in the last six years, we urgently need purpose-built comprehensive schools offering a wide variety of course and making possible the supply of well-educated youngsters so vital to the future of the region. Early leaving has been a particular problem in the North, and the whole educational service is the poorer because so many children leave as soon as they reach the statutory age. Fewer children staying on means a smaller building programme because the sixth forms are smaller. The basic need element that has governed the building programmes for so long is less than in the more prosperous parts. Early leaving means fewer children going on to higher education and poorer overall secondary provision because the older the child the more units he represents in assessing rate support grant.
  I have become convinced that one of the reasons is the mania that we have for labelling our children. If one labels a child "B" or "C"—it is sometimes done in the infants' school—and that label carries on, and both parents and child are aware of it throughout the school career, can one wonder that when the child is 15 both he and his parents are convinced that the best thing he can do is get away from school and begin work? There is far too much selection in our schools, and, of course, far too much selection and segregation outside them.

  441
  In the north far too many parents—1 say this as a practising school master—are far to willing to accept the verdict of the school and the label placed on their child. That is why so many of our children are leaving without realising their full potential. Education was developed in the region to serve the traditional industries where the worker learnt his trade in the job. Apprenticeships have been a strong feature, and they had to be taken up before the 16th birthday. Many children were forced to leave school in order to supplement the family income.
  I say without fear of contradiction that we have penalised and punished the average and below average children for generations, and now we must give them justice by abolishing privileged selective schools. It is no crime to involve parents by reminding them that education is the key very often to better job prospects and a better living standard. If there is a choice, the community must choose in favour of those hitherto under-privileged.
  I want particularly to mention maintenance grants. I know that maintenance grants for children staying on at school are discretionary. It is about time we made them mandatory to ensure parity between the various areas of the country. I asked a widow, who had two children at secondary school both likely to go on to higher education, to apply for a maintenance grant. When she filled in the form I was amazed at the scales laid down. The maximum grant payable to a 16-year-old child is £115 per annum, and for a 17– or 18-year-old boy the maximum is £140 per annum. One must have less than £450 a year net income to obtain the maximum grant. That is not being fair to our children. There ought now to be a mandatory system, a national rate, and this ought to be taken over in the same way as higher education grants and so on.
  There is no doubt that much can be done for the schools. I could take the Minister to a school in my region which I know well. It is a neighbourhood comprehensive school. I know what is often said about neighbourhood schools. It serves two council housing estates. The numbers staying on at the school represent a figure well above the national average. That is so because the school offers facilities superior to many grammar schools. It has a dedicated staff who offer
  442
  a wide variety of courses. The courses are practical, realistic and vocational. There was a time when I was against vocational courses in schools. As chairman of an education authority I was asked about typewriting, and I said that typewriting had nothing educational about it. But when I have seen girls doing typewriting and so on, I have seen their attitude to school change completely. I have seen boys doing courses relevant to what they want to do when they leave school, and their whole attitude changes. I am fully converted to that kind of education.
  The Northern Economic Planning Council, in a very interesting document called "Education" published early last year, made a strong plea for the Northern Region to be given special status for education. It suggested a 10-year programme under which we would have discriminatory treatment similar to that of the road programme initiated by the previous Government. The Council is right. We need nursery provision, improvements in the primary schools and Government aid to enable local authorities to go comprehensive. It is interesting that the Council advocated comprehensive schools for the Northern Region.
  An injection of resources now—not in five or 10 years' time—would yield great dividends both socially and economically. It would enable the region to contribute to the prosperity of the nation. Even more important, it would give every boy and girl the opportunity which they ought to have to develop their talents and abilities to the full. I am very conscious of that every day in the North.
  I want to see the Minister taking the initiative, allocating extra resources and pursuing a positive policy which would give individual children real equality of opportunity and enable the Northern Region to achieve parity with other areas of the country.
  1.14 a.m.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: As one who until June was associated with the next rung on the educational ladder, may I press on the Minister that unless the points raised by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) are taken into account, and unless the nursery, primary and secondary schools in the

  443
  North-East are given the resources which they desperately need, much of the expenditure on the Universities of Durham and Newcastle and on the polytechnics in the region is ill-spent. Unless we get our basis right, we do not achieve the objective of this expenditure. Therefore, as one who is associated with that end, I briefly support my hon. Friend's submission.
  1.15 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) will forgive me and, I hope, acquit me of discourtesy if I am unable to deal with all the points that he has raised. I have noted them carefully, as I have those made in the necessarily brief intervention of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes).
  I hope that it will not sound unduly pompous, which I hope that I am not, if I say that my first official visit in my job was to the North-East. That was because I have always thought that too much happens from London, and I wanted to start my modest and no doubt short career at my Department by seeing for myself on the ground some of the problems in a region which is rightly famous for a very vigorous people. As a result, I am fully conscious of the requirements of education in that area.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West has referred to the Report of the Northern Economic Planning Council, which I have read with great care. My Secretary of State has asked me to say that she hopes, before long, to send the Council some further comments on its report. Naturally, there has already been contact on this matter.
  I want, as the hon. Gentleman did, to start at nursery education. Both hon. Members are more entitled to say so than I am, but it is undoubtedly true that, for historical reasons largely connected with the pattern of employment in the North-East, nursery education has not developed rapidly. Over England and Wales as a whole, about 8 per cent of the combined 3 and 4-year olds are in nursery schools or classes, whereas the proportion in the North is very much smaller. That is why our predecessors devoted a sub-
  444
  stantial part of the first two phases of the Urban Programme to the expansion of nursery education in the North.
  Between them, those two phases provide over 1,000 places, or about 10 per cent of the total for England and Wales as a whole. That has to be set against the Northern Region's 7½ per cent of the total school population. It is fair to recall that allocation.
  In phase 3 of the Urban Programme, which we announced last month, the Northern Region has done even better. We have approved another 750 places, or about 15 per cent of the total for England and Wales. In terms of money, the north has done better still. About one-fifth of the total educational share of the third phase of the Urban Programme is going to the North, with a special Government grant of 75 per cent. So I am able to say that I am totally seized of the problem and that, as far as resources allow, we shall continue to expand nursery education in socially deprived areas.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that in its report, the Economic Planning Council recognised that the north had had a substantial share of the resources available for school building during the 1960s. In the three programmes so far approved for the 1970s, this record will be maintained and improved. The value of major projects to be started, including the special allocations for raising the school leaving age, will rise from £11 million in 1970–71 to nearly £12½ million in 1972–73. Within the total for 1972–73, the Northern Region will do particularly well in terms of resources for the replacement and improvement of old primary schools, which is the Government's first priority for school building after basic needs have been met. There are 39 projects in the programme for this purpose, at a cost of over £3·5 million, compared with 25 projects at a cost of £2·2 million in 1971–72. The primary school building programme as a whole in the Northern Region in 1972–73 will total about £4·8 million, 20 per cent. more than in each of the two previous years and indeed an all-time record.
  The hon. Member made special reference to primary schools, and, without his expertise behind me, I totally agree with his order or priorities. He will, therefore,

  445
  be glad to know that the two programmes together will make possible the replacement of about one-fifth of those nineteenth century primary schools for which, according to returns by local authorities, there is a long-term need. 1 hope we shall be able to maintain this good progress. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to make this very clear indeed.
  Perhaps I could mention one other small but important feature of school building programmes. Durham's allocation for minor works costing less than £30,000 each and this is an important human allocation, although it may be small money in national terms—has been increased from £380,000 in 1970–71 and 71–72 to £450,000 in 1972–73.
  The House will appreciate that the 1972–73 programme is the first which an incoming Government, in this sphere, can lay hands on. Quite properly, reference has been made to class sizes, particularly in primary schools. I do not want anyone to read satisfaction into my words. One of the great interests of education is that one can never be satisfied because each progress produces greater demand.
  In January, 1969, 10·2 per cent. of primary classes in the North had more than 40 pupils, compared with 9·5 per cent. in the country as a whole, so it was worse. As the hon. Member foreshadowed, by January, 1970, the North's figure had fallen to 6·8 per cent. as against 6·7 per cent. for the country as a whole. In other words, the north has been catching up, and the proportion of primary classes over 35 in the North, 34·6 per cent., is smaller than the figure of 37·6 per cent. for England and Wales. The figure for the proportion of classes over 35 is smaller per cent. than the figure for England and Wales. Under the quotas recently announced, staffing at schools in the North should continue to improve.
  I was glad that the hon. Member mentioned the school leaving age and voluntary staying on. I take every opportunity of making it clear that the Government are firmly committed to raising the school leaving age in 1972–73 and the North has its substantial share of the necessary allocation of resources.
  446
  Even in advance of the raising of the school leaving age, we can all recognise, as the hon. Member has, that voluntary staying on in the North has shown a welcome increase. In 1964—I think this is the same figure as the hon. Member mentioned—24 per cent. of pupils were staying on at maintained schools. He was absolutely right to look at the figure with great anxiety, comparing it with the national figure of 37 per cent. By 1969 the gap had been halved to 45 per cent. in the North and 53 per cent. in England and Wales. No region made faster progress in this very important matter than the North.
  I shall not go into higher education and the university sector, which is also important; but I should like to mention capital investment as a whole. The Economic Planning Council's Report, which I have already mentioned, showed that over the four years 1965–66 to 1968–69 capital investment for education in the North, other than universities, totalled over £47 million and represented over £14 per head of the population—the highest figure for any region in the country.
  I do not want anyone to read into what I have said that I am satisfied or that, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I am complacent. Not only in education but in many other services mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which I am not qualified to answer for at this Box there are still big gaps to fill. I understand that this throws heavy burdens on the local authorities, but I am seeking to show, without complacency, that there has been a very marked improvement over recent years. In particular—though I seek to make no narrow party point here, because this is not how the debate has been raised and conducted—specific decisions of this Government have continued and built upon that progress. I hope that I have shown that with my personal concern for and interest in a vital part of this United Kingdom I am not likely to overlook the proper and rightful claims of the North.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past One o'clock.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Division No. 133.]

  AYES

  [8.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Meacher, Michael

  Albu, Austen

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Allen, Scholefield

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ashley, Jack

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Ashton, Joe

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Atkinson, Norman

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Barnett, Joel

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Beaney, Alan

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hardy, Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oram, Bert

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Booth, Albert

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bradley, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cant, R. B.

  Hunter, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Carmichael,Neil

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Pentland, Norman

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Janner, Greville

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Prescott, John

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cronin, John

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caemarvon)

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Judd, Frank

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kelley, Richard

  Roper, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lamble, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lamond, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lawson, George

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Deakins, Eric Lee,

  Rt. Hn, Frederick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Leonard, Dick

  Siliars, James

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Silverman, Julius

  Dempsey, James

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Skinner, Dennis

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Small, William

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stiriingshire, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stallard, A. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Ladle, Alex

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McBride, Neil

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strang, Gavin

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McElhone, Frank

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ellis, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Swain, Thomas

  Evans, Fred

  Mackie, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Femyhough, E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

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

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Foot, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Tuck, Raphael

  Forrester, John

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Varley, Eric G.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wainwright, Edwin

  448

  449

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  White, James (Glasgow, Polfok)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Wallace, George

  Whitlock, William

  Watkins, David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Well belloved, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Emery, Peter

  Kitson, Timothy

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knox, David

  Astor, John

  Farr, John

  Lane, David

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fidler, Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Balniel, Lord

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bell, Ronald

  Fortescue, Tim

  Loveridge, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Foster, Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fowler, Norman

  MacArthur, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Fox, Marcus

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gardner, Edward

  McMaster, Stanley

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maddan, Martin

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madel, David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gorst, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Braine, Bernard

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Bray, Ronald

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  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.

  Grylis, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bryan, Paul

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Micampbell, Norman

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hall-John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moate, Roger

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Money, Ernie

  Carlisle, Mark

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monro, Hector

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Channon, Paul

  Haslhurst, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Havers, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Clarke, Kenneth (RushCliffe)

  Hicks, Robert

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Clegg, Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Neave, Airey

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Cooke, Robert

  Hill James (Southampton, Test)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Coombs, Derek

  Holland, Philip

  Normanton, Tom

  Cooper, A. E.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nott, John

  Cordle, John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hordern, Peter

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hornby, Richard

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Costain, A. P.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Osborn, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Crouch, David

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Curran, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Pardoe, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hutchinson, Michael Clark

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Peel, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Dean, Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Dixon, Piers

  Jopling, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Eden, Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  450

  451

  Raison, Timothy

  Spence, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sproat, Iain

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Redmond, Robert

  Stainton, Keith

  Waddington, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Steel, David

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stokes, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stuttafard, Dr. Tom

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rost, Peter

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Royle, Anthony

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Temple, John M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Worsley, Marcus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn, N. R.

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Tilney, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Trew, Peter

  Mr. Bernard Weatherhill and

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Soref, Harold

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES

  [9.38 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Deakins, Eric

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Albu, Austen

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn, Edmund

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ashton, Joe

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hunter, Adam

  Atkinson, Norman

  Driberg, Tom

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Janner, Greville

  Barnett, Joel

  Dunn, James A.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Beaney, Alan

  Dunnett, Jack

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Eadie, Alex

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edelman, Maurice

  John, Brynmor

  Bishop, E. S.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  English, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Evans, Fred

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Judd, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kelley, Richard

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Foley, Maurice

  Kinnock, Neil

  Campbell, I. (Dunhartonshire, W.)

  Foot, Michael

  Lambie, David

  Cant, R. B.

  Ford, Ben

  Lamond, James

  Carmichael, Neil

  Forrester, John

  Latham, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lawson, George

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Leonard, Dick

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gourley, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Cronin, John

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hardy, Peter

  McBride, Neil

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Harper, Joseph

  McCartney, Hugh

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McElhone, Frank

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McGuire, Michael

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mackie, John

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Horam, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  452

  453

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Pearl, Rt. Hn, Fred

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Strang, Gavin

  Marks, Kenneth

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.

  Marquand, David

  Prescott, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Taverns, Dick

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Rankin, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Mendelson, John

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Tinn, James

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Tomney, Frank

  Milian, Bruce

  Richard, Ivor

  Torney, Tom

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Coronwy(Caernarvon)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Molloy, William

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roper, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wallace, George

  Moyle, Roland

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, David

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyme)

  Weitzman, David

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Whitlock, William

  Oram, Bert

  Sillars, James

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silverman, Julius

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Small, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Stallard, A. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Pavitt, Laurie

  MR. Donald Coleman

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fox, Marcus

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fry, Peter

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Galbraith, Hn, T. G.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gardner, Edward

  Astor, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cooke, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Coombs, Derek

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Balniel, Lord

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gorst, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gower, Raymond

  Batsford, Brian

  Costain, A. P.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Critchley, Julian

  Gray, Hamish

  Bell, Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Green, Alan

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Grieve, Percy

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Curran, Charles

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Benyon, W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grylls, Michael

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Biffen, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gurden, Harold

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dean, Paul

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Body, Richard

  Dixon, Piers

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Brains, Bernard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero

  Bray, Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brew's, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Havers, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Emery, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brune-Gardyne, J.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bryan, Paul

  Farr, John

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Buck, Antony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

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

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fidler, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Burden, F. A.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Holland, Philip

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hordern, Peter

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hornby, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Foster, Sir John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  454

  455

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Molyneaux, James

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Money, Ernle D.

  Simeons, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  More, Jasper

  Soref, Harold

  James, David

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Speed, Keith

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Spence, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sproat, Iain

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Mudd, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Jopling, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Steel, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Neave, Airey

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Normanton, Tom

  Stokes, John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Nott, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sutcliffe, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kirk, Peter

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Osborn, John

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

  Knox, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Lane, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pardee, John

  Temple, John M.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Peel, John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Percival, Ian

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

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tilney, John

  Longdon, Gilbert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Loveridge, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Trew, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  MacArthur, Ian

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  McCrindle, R. A.

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

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  McLaren, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Waddington, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Raison, Timothy

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Redmond, Robert

  Wall, Patrick

  Madden, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Madel, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Marten, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mather, Carol

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Maude, Angus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mawby, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wilkinson, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rost, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Royle, Anthony

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Younger, Hn. George

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sharples, Richard

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Moate, Roger

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

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Division No. 135.]

  AYES

  [11.8 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Albu, Austen

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Allen, Scholefield

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Buchan, Norman

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Jack

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Barnett, Joel

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Deakins, Eric

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Doig, Peter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dormand, J. D.

  Booth, Albert

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  456

  457

  Driberg, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Latham, Arthur

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dunnett, Jack

  Judd, Frank

  Rankin, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Lawson, George

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leonard, Dick

  Richard, Ivor

  Ellis, Tom

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  English, Michael

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

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

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rodgers, Wiilliam (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Roper, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Illkeston)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rose, Paul B.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyre)

  Foot, Michael

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Ford, Ben

  McBride, Neil

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

  Forrester, John

  McCartney, Frank

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sillars, James

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackie, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Small, William

  Golding, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Summerskili, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Taverne, Dick

  Hattersley, Roy

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Horam, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Tinn, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tomney, Frank

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Torney, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, Roland

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wallace, George

  Janner, Greville

  Oram, Bert

  Watkins, David

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orbach, Maurice

  Weitzman, David

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

  Orme, Stanley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  John, Brynmor

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley Hitchin)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pentland, Norman

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, Ernest G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kinnock, Neil

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Lambie, David

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Benyon, W.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Biffen, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Astor, John

  Blaker, Peter

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Buck, Antony

  Awdry, Daniel

  Body, Richard

  Burden, F. A.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Carlisle, Mark

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bowden, Andrew

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Braine, Bernard

  Channon, Paul

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bray, Ronald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Brewis, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  458

  459

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cooke, Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Coombs, Derek

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jessel, Toby

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Redmond, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Michael

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crouch, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Curran, Charles

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Dean, Paul

  Kitson, Timothy

  Royle, Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Knox, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dixon, Piers

  Lambton, Antony

  St. John-Stevan, Norman

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lane, David

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott, Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Eden, Sir John

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

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Simeons, Charles

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

  Loveridge, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Emery, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Fell, Anthony

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

  Fidler, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Steel, David

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maddan, Martin

  Stewart-Smith, D. G, (Belper)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Madel, David

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fox, Marcus

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stokes, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mather, Carol

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Temple, John M.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gorst, John

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Moate, Roger

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Cray, Hamish

  Molyneaux, James

  Tilney, John

  Green, Alan

  Money, Ernie

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Grieve, Percy

  Monro, Hector

  Trew, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gry11s, Michael

  More, Jasper

  van Strauhenzee, W. R.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Waddington, David

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mudd, David

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Murton, Oscar

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wall, Patrick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Neave, Airey

  Walters, Dennis

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hastings, Stephen

  Normanton, Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Havers, Michael

  Nott, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Heseitine, Michael

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wilkinson, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Osborn, John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hil1, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pardoe, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Holland, Philip

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Peel, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  Hornby, Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  460

  461

  Division No. 136.]

  AYES

  [11.23 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maddan, Martin

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Madel, David

  Astor, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Maginnis, John E.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fox, Marcus

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mather, Carol

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Balniel, Lord

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Batsford, Brian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscamphell, Norman

  Benyon, W.

  Gorst, John

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

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biffen, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Moate, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Molyneaux, James

  Blaker, Peter

  Green, Alan

  Money, Ernle

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Grieve, Percy

  Monro, Hector

  Body, Richard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Boscawen, Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mudd, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Bray, Ronald

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Brewis, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Buck, Antony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Osborn, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pardoe, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Peel, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holland, Philip

  Percival, Ian

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hordern, Peter

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hornby, Richard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Clegg, Walter

  Howell, Raplh (Norfolk, N.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunt, John

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Hutchinson, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Coombs, Derek

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cooper, A. E.

  James, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Raison, Timothy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Redmond, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Curran, Charles

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  King, Tom (Bridgewater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Dean, Paul

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kirk, Peter

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Knox, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lambton, Antony

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lane, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Eden, Sir John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Emery, Peter

  Loveridge, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Simeons, Charles

  Farr, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, R. A.

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

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McLaren, Martin

  Soref, Harold

  Fidler, Michael

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Spence, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sproat, Iain

  462

  463

  Stainton, Keith

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Steel, David

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Tilney, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Stokes, John

  Trew, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wilkinson, Joan

  Sutcliffe, John

  van Strauhenzee, W. R.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tapsell, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Woodnutt, Mark

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Worsley, Marcus

  Waddington, David

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Temple, John M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Mr. Keith Speed and

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walters, Dennis

  Mr. Jasper More

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leonard, Dick

  Allen, Scholefield

  Ellis, Tom

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  English, Michael

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Atkinson, Norman

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

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Barnes, Michael

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Barnett, Joel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Foley, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Foot, Michael

  McBride, Neil

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ford, Ben

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bishop, E. S.

  Forrester, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Booth, Albert

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackie, John

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bradley, Tom

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

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

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Millan, Bruce

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hilton, W. S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Horam, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, Roland

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

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

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Janner, Greville

  O'Malley, Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oram, Bert

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orme, Stanley

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  John, Brynmor

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Dormand, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Pentland, Norman

  Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kelley, Richard

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Driberg, Tom

  Kinnock, Neil

  Prescott, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur

  Probert, Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  Lawson, George

  Rankin, John

  464

  465

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Small, William

  Varley, Eric G.

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wallace, George

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Watkins, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Weitzman, David

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

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Roper, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Whitlock, William

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Swain, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Taverne, Dick

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlliery)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Tinn, James

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Tomney, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Torney, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Silverman, Julius

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. John Golding and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES

  [11.33 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Havers, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Curran, Charles

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heseltine, Michael

  Astor, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dean, Paul

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

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Balniel, Lord

  Dixon, Piers

  Holland, Philip

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Batsford, Brian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hornby, Richard

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Eden, Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Benyon, W.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hunt, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Biffen, John

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Emery, Peter

  James, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Farr, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Body, Richard

  Fell, Anthony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jopling, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fidler, Michael

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bowden, Andrew

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kilfedder, James

  Bray, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brewis, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fowler, Norman

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fox, Marcus

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fry, Peter

  Kirk, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Gardner, Edward

  Knox, David

  Buck, Antony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lambton, Antony

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Lane, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gorst, John

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

  Channon, Paul

  Gower, Raymond

  Longden, Gilbert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Loveridge, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gray, Hamish

  MacArthur, Ian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Green, Alan

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grieve, Percy

  McLaren, Martin

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclife)

  Grylls, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maddan, Martin

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Madel, David

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hamilton, Michael (Sailsbury)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Marten, Neil

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mather, Carol

  Costain, A. P.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Critchtey, Julian

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mauding, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  466

  467

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Sutcliffe, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  Redmond, Robert

  Temple, John M.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Moate, Roger

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Molyneaux, James

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Money, Ernle

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Monro, Hector

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tilney, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  More, Jasper

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Trew, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Rost, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mudd, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Murton, Oscar

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Waddington, David

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Neave, Airey

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wall, Patrick

  Normanton, Tom

  Sharples, Richard

  Walters, Dennis

  Nott, John

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Onslow, Cranley

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Simeons, Charles

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Osborn, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Soref, Harold

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Speed, Keith

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pardoe, John

  Spence, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Peel, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Percival, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Steel, David

  Younger, Hn. George

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Victor Goodhew

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Albu, Austen

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Freeson, Reginald

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Allen, Scholefield

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ginsburg, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Bentley, Alan

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hannan, Willam (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Booth, Albert

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bradley, Tom

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hilton, W. S.

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Horam, John

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunnett, Jack

  Huckfield, Leslie

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ellis, Tom

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  English, Michael

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Evans, Fred

  Janner, Greville

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  John, Brynmor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foley, Maurice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Conran, Bernard

  Foot, Michael

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  468

  469

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

  Molloy, William

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (WYthenshawe)

  Siliars, James

  Judd, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silverman, Julius

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kelley, Richard

  Moyle, Roland

  Small, William

  Kinnock, Neil

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Lambie, David

  Murray, Ronald King

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lamond, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Latham, Arthur

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lawson, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oram, Bert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Leonard, Dick

  Orme, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Oswald, Thomas

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Swain, Thomas

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Taverne, Dick

  Lipton, Marcus

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tinn, James

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tomney, Frank

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pentland, Norman

  Torney, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Tuck, Raphael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Urwin, T. W.

  McElhone, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  McGuire, Michael

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  wainwright, Edwin

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Mackie, John

  Probert, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rankin, John

  Wallace, George

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Watkins, David

  MacPherson, Malcom

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wellbeloved, James

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Marquand, David

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Whitlock, William

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roper, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mendelson, John

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Millan, Bruce

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Mr. John Golding.

  Division No. 138.]

  AYES

  [12.3 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Astor, John

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

  Dean, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Buck, Antony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bunden, F. A.

  Dixon, Piers

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Butter, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Drayson, G. B.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Batsford, Brian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Channon, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Bell, Ronald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clark William (Surrey, E.)

  Farr, John

  Biften, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fell, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Blaker, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fidler, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Body, Richard

  Coombs, Derek

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fowler, Norman

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Costain, A. P.

  Fox, Marcus

  Brainy, Bernard

  Critchley, Julian

  Fry, Peter

  Bray, Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Brewis, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gardner, Edward

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Curran, Charles

  Gibson-Watt, David

  470

  471

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Goodhart, Philip

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rost, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Royle, Anthony

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Gray, Hamish

  Madel, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Green, Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Grieve, Percy

  Marten, Neil

  Sharples, Richard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mather, Carol

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald

  Simeons, Charles

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soref, Harold

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Speed, Keith

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Spence, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Steel, David

  Havers, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Money, Ernle

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monro, Hector

  Stokes, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hicks, Robert

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Holland, Philip

  Neave, Airey

  Temple, John M.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Normanton, Tom

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nott, John

  Tilney, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John

  Trew, Peter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pardoe, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Waddington, David

  Johnson Smith, G. E. (E. Grinstead)

  Peel, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jopling, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wall, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pounder, Rafton

  Walters, Dennis

  Kilfedder, James

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Weatherill, Bernard

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kirk, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Raison, Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Knox, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lambton, Antony

  Redmond, Robert

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lane, David

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Jasper More and

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Tim Fortescue

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Albu, Austen

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bradley, Tom

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Coleman, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchan, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Joel

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthoney Wedgwood

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Cronin, John

  472

  473

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  John, Brynmor

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

  Prescott, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Deakins, Eric

  Judd, Frank

  Prohert, Arthur

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Richard, Ivor

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Rt Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leonard, Dick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lestor, Miss John

  Roper, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rose, Paul B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sillars, James

  Silverman, Julius

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

  McBride, Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Small, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Foley, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Forrester, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Strang, Gavin

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Strauss, Rt. Ho. G. R.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Summerskill, Ho, Dr. Shirley

  Ginsburg, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Swain, Thomas

  Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marquand, David

  Taverne, Dick

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marsh, Rt, Hn. Richard

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Torney, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milian, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wallace, George

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkins, David

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Weitzman, David

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Wellheloved, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Ronald King

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Janner, Greville

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charies

  Mr. John Golding and

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

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Division No. 139.]

  AYES

  [12.14 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Batsford, Brian

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylehone)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bell, Ronald

  Astor, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  474

  475

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Benyon, W.

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mudd, David

  Biffen, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Murton, Oscar

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Normanton, Tom

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nott, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Braine, Bernard

  Havers, Michael

  Osborn, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert

  Pardoe, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peel, John

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Percival, Ian

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Buck, Antony

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Burden, F. A.

  Hordern, Peter

  Pounder, Rafton

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hornby, Richard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

  Channon, Paul

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pym, Rt Hn. Franc's

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hunt, John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Carke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Coombs, Derek

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kellett, Mrs.Elaine

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Contain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Royle, Anthony

  Curran Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kitson, Timothy

  St. John-Stevans, Norman

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Knox, David

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Dean, Paul

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Dixon, Piers

  Le Marchant, Spencer

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Clapham).

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Simeons, Charles

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Skeet, T. H. H

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

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

  Eden, Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

  Eyre, Reginald

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Farr, John

  Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fell, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Steel, David

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fidler, Michael

  Madden, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.

  Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marten, Neil

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

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

  Fowler, Norman

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple, John M.

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard(Croydon, S.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tilney, John

  Gort, John

  Moate, Roger

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gower, Raymond

  Molyneaux, James

  Trew, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Money, Ernle

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  476

  477

  Waddington, David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Wall, Patrick

  Wiggin, Jerry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Walters, Dennis

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr Hector Monro and

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Mr Victor Goodhew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Woodnutt, Mark

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  McBride, Neil

  Albu, Austen

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Allen, Scholefied

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Michael

  Mackie, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Ford, Ben

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Barnes, Michael

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Barnett, Joel

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ginsburg, David

  Marquand, David

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Booth, Albert

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milian, Bruce

  Buchan, Norman

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  Concannon J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Stanley

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cronin, John

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Crosiand, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kelly, Richard

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lamble, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Doig, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Richard, Ivor

  Dormand J. D.

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Driberg, Yom

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Test)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Hamn N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Ellis, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fornyhough, E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  478

  479

  Siliars, James

  Taverne, Dick

  Weitzman, David

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Small, William

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Tinn, James

  Whitlock, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tomney, Frank

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Strang, Gavin

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

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wallace, George

  Mr James Hamilton and

  Swain, Thomas

  Watkins, David

  Mr John Golding

  Division No. 140.]

  AYES

  [12.25 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hornby, Richard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dean, Paul

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Astor, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Howell, Raph (Norfolk, N.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dixon, Piers

  Hunt, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  James, David

  Balniel, Lord

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Eden, Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Batsford, Brian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Jopling, Michael

  Bell, Ronald

  Emery, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Eyre, Reginald Kellett, Mrs.

  Elaine

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Farr, Joan

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Benyon, W.

  Fell, Anthony

  Kilfedder, James

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kimball, Marcus

  Biffen, John

  Fidler, Michael

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  King, Tom (Bridgewater)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Kinsey, J.R.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Body, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kitson, Timothy

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Knox, David

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fowler, Norman

  Lambton, Antony

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fox, Marcus

  Lane, David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fry, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Braine, Bernard

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Bray, Ronald

  Gardner, Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brewis, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Longden, Gilbeert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Loveridge, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacArthur, Ian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Bryan, Paul

  Gorst, John

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Buck, Antony

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Burden, F. A.

  Gray, Hamish

  MacMillian, Maurice (Farnham)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grieve, Percy

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maddan, Martin

  Chanson, Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  Madel, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Marten, Neil

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mather, Carol

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maude, Angus

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hall-Davis A. G. F.

  Maudling,Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mawby, Ray

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Havers, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hayhoe, Barney

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

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Costain, A. P.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Molyneaux, James

  Critchley, Julian

  Hiley, Joseph

  Money, Ernie

  Crouch, David

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

  Monro, Hector

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hill James (Southampton, Test)

  Montgomery, Fergus)

  Curran, Charles

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)

  480

  481

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tebbit, Norman

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Mudd, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Murton, Oscar

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Neave, Airey

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Rost, Peter

  Tilney, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Royle, Anthony

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Normanton, Tom

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Trew, Peter

  Nott, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Scott, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Osborn, John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Waddington, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Pardoe, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wall, Patrick

  Peel, John

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

  Walters, Dennis

  Percival, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Speed, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Spence, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Sproat, Iain

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stainton, Keith

  Whitelaw, Rt Hn. William

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Steel, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stewart-smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Raison, Timothy

  Stokes, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Redmond, Robert

  Sutcliffe, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rees-Davis, W. R.

  Taylor Frank (Moss Side)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Albu, Austen

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Allen, Scholefleld

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Barnes, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Barnett, Joel

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dempsey, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Doig, Peter

  Hilton, W. S.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Horam, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Booth, Albert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Driberg, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bradley, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoredlth & F'bury)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Buchan, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edwards, William (Merieneth)

  Janner, Greville

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Ellis, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W).

  English, Michael

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Evans, Fred

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fernyhough, E.

  John, Brynmor

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Clark, David (Coine Valley)

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ford, Ben

  Jones T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Forrester, John

  Judd, Frank

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Freeson, Reginald

  Kelley, Richard

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lamble, David

  Crawhaw, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lamond, James

  Cronin, John

  Ginsburg, David

  Latham, Arthur

  Grosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Golding, John

  Lawson, George

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gordon Walker, Rt Hn. P. C.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  482

  483

  Leonard, Dick

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Lester, Miss Joan

  O'Malley, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Oram, Bert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Orme, Stanley

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Palmer, Arthur

  Strang, Gavin

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Swain, Thomas

  McBride, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Taverne, Dick

  McCartney, Hugh

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

  McElhone, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McGuire, Michael

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Tinn, James

  Mackie, John

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Tomney, Frank

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Prescott, John

  Torney, Tom

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Urwin, T. W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Probert, Arthur

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Marquand, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Richard, Ivor

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wallace, George

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Watkins, David

  Meacher, Michael

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weitzman, David

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mendelson, John

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Roper, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Millan, Bruce

  Rose, Paul B.

  Whitlock, William

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ross, Rt Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Molloy, William

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Moyle, Roland

  Sillars, James

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman, Julius

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Murray, Ronald King

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  Ogden, Eric

  Small, William

  Mr. James Hamilton

  Division No. 141.]

  AYES

  [12.35 a.m

  Adley, Robert

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

  Eden, Sir John

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buck, Antony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Burden, F. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Emery, Peter

  Astor, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eyre, Reginald

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Farr, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Channon, Paul

  Fell, Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fidler, Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Batstord, Brian

  Clark, Wiliam (Surrey, E.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bell, Ronald

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fortescue, Tim

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cooke, Robert

  Fowler, Norman

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Coombs, Derek

  Fox, Marcus

  Benyon, W.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fry, Peter

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Bitten, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gardner, Edward

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Body, Richard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Boscawen, Robert

  Curran, Charles

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Coral, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gower, Raymond

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Braine, Bernard

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

  Gray, Hamish

  Bray, Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  Green, Alan

  Brewis, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Grieve, Percy

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dixon, Piers

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Grylls, Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Gurden, Harold

  Bryan, Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  484

  485

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marten, Neil

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mather, Carol

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maude, Angus

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mawby, Ray

  Sharples, Richard

  Hasethurst, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Havers, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Simeons, Charles

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Miscamphell, Norman

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick amp; L'mington)

  Heseltine, Michael

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

  Soref, Harold

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Speed, Keith

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Spence, John

  Riley, Joseph

  Molyneaux, James

  Sproat, Iain

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

  Money, Ernie

  Stainton, Keith

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Monro, Hector

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Steel, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hornhy, Richard

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hon.Dame Patricia

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stokes, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Mudd, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Sutcliffe, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  James, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Tebbit Norman

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nott, John

  Temple, John M.

  Jessed, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Osborn, John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Tilney, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Kilfedder, James

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Trew, Peter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Peel, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Percival, Ian

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kirk, Peter

  Pounder, Rafton

  Waddington, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Knox, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Lambton, Antony

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

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Lane, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wall, Patrick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. James

  Walters, Dennis

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Quenneil, Miss J. M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ralson, Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Longden, Gilbert

  Redmond, Robert

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Loveridge, John

  Reed, Peter (Dover)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rees-Davies, W.R.

  Whitelaw Rt. Hn. Wiliam

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  McLaren, Martin

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Maddan, Martin

  Rost, Peter

  Madel, David

  Royle, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Mr. Walter Clegg

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bradley, Tom

  Concannon, J. D.

  Albu, Austen

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

  Conlan, Bernard

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Allen, Scholefield

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Buchan, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Cronin, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Atkinson, Norman

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Barnes, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Barnett, Joel

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter, Ray, (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Darling, Rt. Hn, George

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davies, G. Elted (Rhondda, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Booth, Albert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Coleman, Donald

  Deakins, Eric

  486

  487

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Judd, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Dempsey, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Doig, Peter

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Probert, Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lambie, David

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamond, James

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Latham, Arthur

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lawson, George

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Foley, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Small, William

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Garrett, W. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C

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

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marquand, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Swain, Thomas

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Hamiton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tomney, Frank

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Torney, Tom

  Hattersley, Roy

  Molloy, William

  Tuck, Raphael

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardigtanshir)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wallace, George

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Watkins, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Bert

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Orbach, Maurice

  White, James (Glasgow, Polok)

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stcchford)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  John, Brynmor

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, Alexnder (Hamilton)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. John Golding and

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Alan Fitch

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES

  [12.46 a.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

  Astor, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Blaker, Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bell, Ronald

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Body, Richard

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Boscawen, Robert

  488

  489

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Normanton, Tom

  Bowden, Andrew

  Harrison, Brian (Maiden)

  Nott, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Braine, Bernard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bray, Ronald

  Havers, Michael

  Osborn, John

  Brewis, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peel, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

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

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Buck, Antony

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornby, Richard

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

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

  Channon, Paul

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hunt, John

  Ralson, Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Coombs, Derek

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Certain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rost, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Royle, Anthony

  Curran, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kirk, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knox, David

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dean, Paul

  Lane, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lloyd, Ian (Portsmouth, Langstone)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  Soref, Harold

  Eden, Sir John

  MacArthur Ian

  Spence, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Sproat, Iain

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Stainton, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eyre, Reginald

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Farr, John

  Macmillan, Maurine (Farnham)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fell Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Filder, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

  Sutcliffe, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fowler, Norman

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Temple, John M.

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Tilney, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trew, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moate, Roger

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Gorst, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Gower, Raymond

  Money, Ernie

  Waddington, David

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Montgomery, Feruus

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gray, Hamish

  More, Jasper

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Green, Alan

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm

  Wall, Patrick

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walters, Dennis

  Grylls, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Murton, Oscar

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gurden, Harold

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Neave, Airey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  490

  491

  Wilkinson, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Younger, Hn. George

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Albu, Austen

  Forrester, John

  Marsh, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Allen, Scholefield

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Meacher, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Ashton, Joe

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Golding, John

  Milian, Bruce

  Barnes, Michael

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Barnett, Joel

  Gourlay, Harry

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Booth, Albert

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Moyle, Roland

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bradley, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Malley, Brian

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Campbell, I. (Dumbartonshire, W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carter-Jones. Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Castle-Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pendry Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Prescott, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cronin, John

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

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

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

  Darling, Rt Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roper, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kinnock, Nell

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lambie, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur

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

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, George

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dempsey, James

  Leonard, Dick

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silverman, Jullus

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Small, William

  Driberg, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dunn, James A.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mason, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Edwards, Robert (BlIston)

  McBride, Neil

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Edwards, William (Merfoneth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strang, Gavin

  Ellis, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  English, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Evans, Fred

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Swain, Thomas

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackie, John

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Tinn, James

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Tomney, Frank

  Foot, Michael

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

  Torney, Tom

  492

  493

  Tuck, Raphael

  Weitzman, David

  Willams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Valey, Eric G.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

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

  Whitlock, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  Wallace, George

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Watkins, David

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Production (Report)
  Agricultural Production (Report)
  Agriculture (Capital Investment)
  Agriculture (Capital Investment)
  Agricultural Shows
  Agricultural Shows
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Agricultural Output
  Agricultural Output
  Sheep Population
  Sheep Population
  Horticultural Industry
  Horticultural Industry
  Horticultural Markets (Capital Expenditure)
  Horticultural Markets (Capital Expenditure)
  Import Levies
  Import Levies
  Farm Costs
  Farm Costs
  Brucellosis Incentives Scheme
  Brucellosis Incentives Scheme
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Farming Income
  Farming Income
  Annual Farm Price Review
  Annual Farm Price Review
  Administrative Costs
  Administrative Costs
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Land Holdings (Disposal)
  Land Holdings (Disposal)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Horticulture (Co-operative Marketing)
  Horticulture (Co-operative Marketing)
  Organochlorine Pesticides
  Organochlorine Pesticides
  Arterial Drainage
  Arterial Drainage
  Grubbing Grant
  Grubbing Grant
  Hill Farms (Afforestation)
  Hill Farms (Afforestation)
  Breeding Ewes
  Breeding Ewes
  Unicar System
  Unicar System
  Fish Meal
  Fish Meal
  Thames Barrage
  Thames Barrage
  Fish Consumption
  Fish Consumption
  Meat Tax
  Meat Tax
  Meat Substitute Foods
  Meat Substitute Foods
  Fox Control
  Fox Control
  Processed Foods (Date Labelling)
  Processed Foods (Date Labelling)
  Fish Products (Research and Development)
  Fish Products (Research and Development)
  Cattle (Exports to Belgium and France)
  Cattle (Exports to Belgium and France)
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Rural Electrification (Mid-Ulster)
  Rural Electrification (Mid-Ulster)
  Drumlin-type Hillocks
  Drumlin-type Hillocks
  Policy Changes (Food Prices)
  Policy Changes (Food Prices)
  Bulky Soil Conditioners
  Bulky Soil Conditioners
  Young Farmers' Clubs
  Young Farmers' Clubs
  London, Flood Protection (Finance)
  London, Flood Protection (Finance)
  D.D.T.
  D.D.T.
  Bananas
  Bananas
  MUTUAL LIFE AND CITIZENS' ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. EVATT
  MUTUAL LIFE AND CITIZENS' ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. EVATT
  MINORS (DRUGS)
  MINORS (DRUGS)
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
  MR. JOHN MEDLICOTT
  MR. JOHN MEDLICOTT
  DEMONSTRATION, WOLVERHAMPTON
  DEMONSTRATION, WOLVERHAMPTON
  LAND (TITLE)
  LAND (TITLE)
  HESKETH AND OTHERS (POLICE INQUIRIES)
  HESKETH AND OTHERS (POLICE INQUIRIES)
  COURT HEARINGS (TRANSCRIPTS)
  COURT HEARINGS (TRANSCRIPTS)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (PROSECUTION)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (PROSECUTION)
  RHODESIA (SANCTION BREAKING)
  RHODESIA (SANCTION BREAKING)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  RACE RELATIONS ACT (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE)
  RACE RELATIONS ACT (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS' INVESTMENTS (SOUTH AFRICA)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS' INVESTMENTS (SOUTH AFRICA)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Public Assets (Disposal)
  Public Assets (Disposal)
  Sweets (Taxation)
  Sweets (Taxation)
  Postal Strike
  Postal Strike
  Selective Employment Tax (Building Industry)
  Selective Employment Tax (Building Industry)
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Income Tax (Threshold)
  Income Tax (Threshold)
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, County Durham
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, County Durham
  Income Tax (Entertainers and Business Men)
  Income Tax (Entertainers and Business Men)
  Peers (Tax-Free Allowance)
  Peers (Tax-Free Allowance)
  Price and Wage Increases (Policy)
  Price and Wage Increases (Policy)
  Income Tax (Outstanding Payments)
  Income Tax (Outstanding Payments)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Mid-Ulster (Inland Revenue Offices)
  Mid-Ulster (Inland Revenue Offices)
  Soft Drinks Industry (Purchase Tax)
  Soft Drinks Industry (Purchase Tax)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unmarried Mothers (Maintenance and Confinement Fees)
  Unmarried Mothers (Maintenance and Confinement Fees)
  Operating Theatres (Staffing)
  Operating Theatres (Staffing)
  Whittington Hospital, Archway
  Whittington Hospital, Archway
  Wage-stopped Persons
  Wage-stopped Persons
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Perambulators (Safety)
  Perambulators (Safety)
  Home Helps (Nottingham)
  Home Helps (Nottingham)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Possum Equipment
  Possum Equipment
  National Health Service Beds (Occupancy Rate)
  National Health Service Beds (Occupancy Rate)
  Hospitals (Huddersfield)
  Hospitals (Huddersfield)
  Supplementary Benefits (Huddersfield)
  Supplementary Benefits (Huddersfield)
  Supplementary Benefits (Curtailments)
  Supplementary Benefits (Curtailments)
  Hospital Equipment
  Hospital Equipment
  Birmingham (N.H.S. Expenditure)
  Birmingham (N.H.S. Expenditure)
  Maternity Grant and Allowance
  Maternity Grant and Allowance
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Disabled Persons (Studies)
  Disabled Persons (Studies)
  Invalid Carriages (Delivery)
  Invalid Carriages (Delivery)
  Wigan, Leigh and District Management Area
  Wigan, Leigh and District Management Area
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  West Cumberland (Pensioners)
  West Cumberland (Pensioners)
  West Cumberland Hospital Services
  West Cumberland Hospital Services
  Doctors (Temporary Registration Fees)
  Doctors (Temporary Registration Fees)
  Influenza
  Influenza
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Royal Northern Hospital, London
  Royal Northern Hospital, London
  District Midwives and Nurses (West Riding)
  District Midwives and Nurses (West Riding)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Newpaper Industry (Royal Commission)
  Newpaper Industry (Royal Commission)
  Cucumbers
  Cucumbers
  Hospital Equipment (Imports from Pakistan)
  Hospital Equipment (Imports from Pakistan)
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Investment Grants (Wales)
  Investment Grants (Wales)
  Coal Miners
  Coal Miners
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  West Cornwall (Unemployment)
  West Cornwall (Unemployment)
  Yorkshire Coalfield
  Yorkshire Coalfield
  Oil Prices (Conversion of Power Stations)
  Oil Prices (Conversion of Power Stations)
  Heathrow Airport (Pollution Tests)
  Heathrow Airport (Pollution Tests)
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
WALES
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Harvest
  Harvest
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Cardiganshire (Male Employment)
  Cardiganshire (Male Employment)
  Government Establishments
  Government Establishments
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Aberystwyth (Industrial Site)
  Aberystwyth (Industrial Site)
  Glynoorrwg Area (Advance Factory)
  Glynoorrwg Area (Advance Factory)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Commonwealth Citizens (United Kingdom Citizenship)
  Commonwealth Citizens (United Kingdom Citizenship)
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Police (Resignations)
  Police (Resignations)
  Au Pair Placement
  Au Pair Placement
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  DIEGO GARCIA
  DIEGO GARCIA
  WAGES
  WAGES
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (TALKS)
  GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (TALKS)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
DEFENCE
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  East Midlands (Army District Headquarters)
  East Midlands (Army District Headquarters)
  Army Recruits (East Midlands District)
  Army Recruits (East Midlands District)
  Red Arrows Accident (Widows)
  Red Arrows Accident (Widows)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Charity Commission
  Charity Commission
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Primary School 1Classes)
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Primary School 1Classes)
  Schools (Swimming Pools)
  Schools (Swimming Pools)
  The Arts (Wales)
  The Arts (Wales)
  Social Science Research Council (Grants)
  Social Science Research Council (Grants)
  Secondary Reorganisation, Lancashire
  Secondary Reorganisation, Lancashire
  Derbyshire Dome (Geological Survey)
  Derbyshire Dome (Geological Survey)
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Nursery School Places (Lancashire)
  Nursery School Places (Lancashire)
EMPLOYMENT
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Cymmer
  Cymmer
  Disabled Persons (Aberavon and Cymmer)
  Disabled Persons (Aberavon and Cymmer)
ENVIRONMENT
  Burst Water Mains
  Burst Water Mains
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Planning Proposals
  Planning Proposals
  Rock Ferry Bypass
  Rock Ferry Bypass
  Prefabricated Bungalows
  Prefabricated Bungalows
  House-building Land, Nottingham (Cost)
  House-building Land, Nottingham (Cost)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Housing (Capital Investment)
  Housing (Capital Investment)
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Buildings)
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Buildings)
  Francis Report
  Francis Report
  Slum Houses (Definition)
  Slum Houses (Definition)
  Inner London (Private Lettings)
  Inner London (Private Lettings)
  Housing (Huddersfield)
  Housing (Huddersfield)
  Rent Policy (Committee's Report)
  Rent Policy (Committee's Report)
  Furnished Tenancies
  Furnished Tenancies
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Road Vehicles (Safety)
  Road Vehicles (Safety)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Ports in Wales (Expenditure)
  Ports in Wales (Expenditure)
  Dock Schemes (Development Grants)
  Dock Schemes (Development Grants)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sierra Leone (Aid)
  Sierra Leone (Aid)
  Family Planning and Population Control
  Family Planning and Population Control
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY)
  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
SCOTLAND
  Agricultural Land(Use)
  Agricultural Land(Use)
  Girnock Burn (Grilse and Adult Salmon)
  Girnock Burn (Grilse and Adult Salmon)
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Young Farmers' Clubs
  Young Farmers' Clubs

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Earl of Donoughmore (Viscount Hutchinson)—Took the Oath.

ADVERTISING OF CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the possibility of advertisements for cigarettes being prohibited, or severely curtailed, in order to prevent encouragement of a disease-promoting habit, what action is contemplated to curtail advertisements on television and other media that encourage alcoholism and other diseases through excessive consumption of alcohol; and whether any proposals have been received from cigarette manufacturers, brewers, vintners and distillers in respect of voluntary advertising restrictions.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, there is already considerable curtailment of advertising on television: distillers have agreed not to advertise hard liquor, and television advertisements for other forms of alcohol are not permitted, under the Advertising Advisory Committee's code of practice, immediately before, during or after children's programmes. No further approaches have been received from the manufacturers about voluntary restrictions on the advertising of alcohol.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not think it is inconsistent completely to ban cigarette advertising and not the advertising of drink, which is the cause of just as much trouble? May I also ask him whether the Government have made any representation to the brewers and distillers to see whether they cannot further curtail the advertisements of their products on television?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, with respect it is true to say that there is a slight difference between cigarette smoking and alcohol. Even a moderate amount of cigarette smoking may be harmful to health, whereas alcohol consumption, in moderation, is not. On the second point, we have not made any representations.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that alcohol is one of the causes of cirrhosis of the liver, and similar complaints?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there is no evidence that the figures for cirrhosis of the liver have been rising. They are steady.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having regard to the fact that people are imitative, does the Minister think that prohibition such as he has already described is of any use while commentators and glamorous heroes of the screen are chain-smokers?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I agree that it is another form of insidious propaganda that comes through, but I do not think there is anything that the Government can appropriately do about it.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord another supplementary question? How can this prohibition be effective when this kind of encouragement is given on the screen? What is the purpose of the one prohibition when he takes little notice of the other licence?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not quite clear which prohibition the noble Baroness is talking about. There is voluntary agreement among distillers not to advertise hard liquor, and there is a further code of practice of the Advertising Advisory Committee, which controls the showing of advertisements during or immediately before or after children's programme.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if the advertisers of alcohol were obliged to put the price of their product on each advertisement it might deter some people from buying it?

RABBIT CLEARANCE GRANTS
2.39 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the withdrawal of the grant to rabbit clearance societies, what statutory powers within the Pest Act 1954 and the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 will be retained to control rabbits.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, rabbit clearance grants are payable under an enabling power given to the Agricultural Ministers by Section 3 of the Pests Act 1954. Legislation is not therefore necessary to carry out the Government's decision to withdraw the grants. The statutory powers under the Acts of 1954 and 1948 and the Orders made under them will remain, so that occupiers will continue to be required to control rabbits on their land, and the Agricultural Ministers will continue to have powers to ensure that this is done.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the pre-myxomatosis damage carried out by rabbits amounted in Scotland to several million pounds, and over the whole country was estimated at £50 million, what steps do the Government intend to take to see that we do not return to that position?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the present position is that while before myxomatosis the damage done in Scotland amounted to about £5 million to £7 million, it is now only about £500,000. One would nevertheless hope that after receiving grants for 16 years these rabbit clearance societies would remain in being, because farmers must realise that it is in their interests to keep the rabbit population down.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government have fully considered that while some owners of big arable farms would be quite willing to double their subscriptions to the societies the owners of smaller and marginal farms, whose income is usually less than that of the lowest paid agricultural worker, cannot do so? Would it not be a tragedy if rabbit damage to crops and grass in Scotland, which has been almost eliminated in the past 15 years, should now begin all over again?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree that it would be a tragedy if the rabbits were to increase in very large numbers again. While I understand perfectly the question of the noble Earl, I would point out that

5
the small farmers have been working very successfully together in co-operatives, and I should have thought that they would still be able to do so.
LORD HOY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us why the grants, which were so important under a Labour Government, are unimportant now that we have a Tory Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the reason is that these grants have been given for about 16 years, and it is felt that farmers, whether large or small, realise that it is in their interest to control these pests. It was one of the Election pledges of the Tory Government to try to reduce expenditure in every Department.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean that rabbits are less productive under a Tory Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am not yet aware of that.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the Government are taking a very big risk by withdrawing these grants in one step rather than tapering them off? Is the noble Baroness further aware that while she repeats that farmers are responsible for eliminating the pests on their land, and refers to the statutory powers, it was not in the main the farmers who were responsible for the spread of rabbits but the owners of building sites and such derelict areas as railway embankments, which are centres for breeding rabbits, where it was impossible to control them and extremely difficult for the agricultural Ministers to mount successful prosecutions against the owners of the land?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, this particular problem will not change, because powers are still there for the agricultural Ministers to ensure that occupiers of land will in fact be responsible for clearing their land of rabbits.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Does that mean, my Lords, that the Government can, under the Act, renew these grants again in a year or two if it should appear then to be necessary?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, that is so, although at the present moment we have no intention of doing so.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to promote private enterprise in all manners, including by the rabbits?
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, may I ask: my noble friend whether it is intended to step up the use of procedures for inspection and enforcement against those who harbour rabbits, and to make this procedure more stringent than it has been?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVEE: My Lords, the powers are all there. I agree that there are difficulties in enforcement, but there is every intention on the part of both agricultural Ministers to make clear to owners of occupied land what their responsibilities are under the Act.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would ask her officials if they consider that the powers are sufficient, because I think she would find that those who have to enforce them consider them insufficient. Furthermore, is she aware that the main reason rabbit clearance societies were not effective was that the present powers were inadequate and no compulsion could be nut on them to "blackleg" the farmer and landowner who refused to co-operate, unlike the compulsory powers which exist for marketing boards.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I realise that there is some difficulty in that a farmer can do a certain amount of work in controlling his rabbits without entirely eliminating them and is not therefore subject to the penalty enforcement. But I have not been advised that the powers are insufficient.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell her right honourable friend the number of questions that have been asked in this House? Will she tell him that both sides of the House believe that this is a false economy, and would he look at the matter again?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I could not undertake to do that because this is a

7
decision that was taken after careful thought, as indeed are all decisions taken by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that she is not prepared to do as my noble friend asked and inform her right honourable friend of the feeling in this House? Are all decisions of this Government always going to be immutable?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he said: would I ask that this question be reconsidered? I said I did not think I could do so at this time. So far as the opinion of the whole House is concerned, I should find it difficult to assess the opinion of your Lordships' House without a good deal more consideration.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is very unusual for any noble Lord speaking from the Government Front Bench not to undertake to convey feelings expressed in all quarters of the House on a matter? May I again ask her whether she will convey this feeling to her right honourable friend?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am always ready to convey feelings, but I was asked a specific question, whether I would ask for the matter to be reconsidered, and I know that that is not a fruitful question at this moment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, when the noble Baroness conveys feeling to her right honourable friend, will she please remember to convey that not everybody feels as some of her hostile questioners have, and that many noble Lords here believe that farmers are learning to stand on their own feet and would prefer to do so.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl for coming to my assistance, and also for justifying my feeling that it was difficult to assess the whole opinion of your Lordships' House.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the modern rabbit is not so inclined to burrow as his ancestor was, and that therefore he is
8
very much more easily dealt with than the rabbit of twenty years ago?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am grateful for that personal knowledge.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, if the noble Baroness feels that the Government are not prepared to reintroduce the grant, will she at least look at the powers available at the moment for compulsion and making people control their pests, and see whether these should not be improved?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords; I will certainly look at the powers, although I cannot give any undertaking that it will be possible to improve them.

DIVORCE PETITIONSIN SCOTLAND
2.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that all undefended divorce cases in Scotland can only be tried in Edinburgh, what is the cost of these cases to the taxpayer in legal aid charges, and whether they will give the reason why these cases, which on average take 11½ minutes, cannot be tried in sheriff-substitute courts.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is not possible to differentiate between defended and undefended actions in assessing the cost of divorce proceedings to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund. The total cost of such proceedings to the Fund in 1969–70 was approximately £600,000, an amount which was partly offset by contributions made by assisted persons. The proposal that the sheriff court should have jurisdiction in divorce proceedings was carefully examined by the Committee on the Sheriff Courts but was rejected on the ground that, although there would be certain advantages of economy and convenience to litigants if the sheriff courts could dispose of divorce cases, the importance

9
of such actions, whether defended or undefended, fully justified granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. The Government considers that the arguments set out in the Committee's Report are still valid in present circumstances.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that entirely unsatisfactory Answer, may I say that we admit that the present arrangement is of great advantage to junior advocates in Edinburgh? But does she really think it is fair on the public that they have to pay what is undoubtedly a large proportion of these expenses for something that could be equally well done in local sheriff courts, as it is done in equivalent county courts in England?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that about five-sixths of the undefended divorce cases take place in the central belt of Scotland. For that reason it is not felt that any great hardship is imposed on litigants. And because often undefended cases afterwards become defended in questions of allocation of property or capital, we do not think we could depart from the Grant Committee's recommendation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what happens to a litigant outside the central belt—say somebody in Caithness?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that 80 per cent. receive legal aid. I also understand that the largest number of divorce cases outside the central belt of Scotland occur for some reason in Aberdeen.

E.E.C. AND UNITED KINGDOM INSHORE FISHING
LORD BOOTHBY: 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, in the negotiations for our entry into the Common Market, they will take good care to protect the interests of the inshore fishing fleets of the United Kingdom.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in the negotiations with the E.E.C., Her Majesty's Government have reserved their position on the common fisheries policy of the Community. The detailed national and local implications of the policy, including its implications for all sections of the British fishing industry, are now under careful examination.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the new fishery regulations of the Common Market, which would allow Continental trawlers to fish right up to our beaches, would inevitably ruin the British inshore fishing industry if applied to this country, especially in Scotland, the West Country and the Isle of Man? Does the noble Earl not agree that this is far too heavy a price to pay for entry into the Common Market and, as such, is quite unacceptable; and can he give an assurance that our present fishery limits will be maintained at all costs by our negotiators in Brussels?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has made, and I think it is only fair to say that at the moment, although they have committed themselves to the common fisheries policy, all the details are not yet clear. It is for this: reason, among others, that Her Majesty's Government have fully reserved their position with regard to the fishing.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government, in these negotiations about fishing, are including the question of shellfish, and particularly of lobsters, which are now forming a growing export trade for this country?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the remarks which my noble friend has made about the shellfish industry of this country.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, how does the noble Earl justify the Answer he gave to the original Question, in view of the clause in the Treaty of Rome which provides, without any qualification or reservation, for the free movement of labour? Does not the content of that clause impinge on British fishing rights?

11
Also, is it not singular that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who for many years has been one of the most ardent advocates of British entry into the Common Market, is now beginning to realise that it is not all "beer and skittles"?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows very well that in all these negotiations there are bound to be problems, and that is the reason why the negotiations are taking place. I think it is fair to remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in the House of Commons that he was aware of the extreme importance which the Government and the House attached to satisfaction on this vital issue with regard to fishing. It is for this reason that the Government have reserved their position, in order that negotiations can be fully entered into.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that it is all very well to negotiate, but surely negotiations are inhibited by the clear, rigid and inflexible content of the clauses in the Treaty of Rome? How does he overcome that difficulty?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think if the noble Lord studies the Common business policy he will find that they are not clear and rigid and inflexible.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not the case that if Norway came into the Common Market with us the Scottish fishermen would then be able to fish all the territorial waters of Norway, to their infinite satisfaction?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is perfectly right in what he says.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that would not be very great compensation to inshore fishermen? Is he further aware that inshore fishing is the livelihood of many parts of our coastline, not only in Scotland but in England as well? Indeed, in the South West there is considerable dependency on the shellfish industry, and if this is lost then people in these areas will simply be unemployed.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am fully aware of the observations which the
12
noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has made, and I would remind him of something—because these words will carry far more strength than ever mine would—namely, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he could assure the House that the Government had no intention of allowing our inshore waters to be raped.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that last reply, may I ask him, arising out of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whether he is aware that we are not interested in inshore fishing in Norwegian waters? We are interested in Norwegian fishing in our own inshore waters, which is much more important. Will he at least give an assurance that our negotiators in Brussels will be informed of the discussion we have had in this House to-day?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I would merely say to him that he may not be interested in our people fishing in Norwegian waters but there may be others who are.
LORD BOOTHBY: No: nobody.
EARL FERRERS: However, I will certainly pass on his remarks.

LAOS: SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY OPERATION
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice:
Whether, in view of the now confirmed reports of extensive fighting in Laos, consequent upon the operation made by the Army of South Vietnam, the Government will make a Statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as Co-Chairman of the 1961 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

AUSTRALIAN, MERCANTILE, LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
LORD MOW BRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is a common practice in Scotland to navigate carts?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my noble friends from North of the Border will know that this is the river Cart.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDL ESHAM): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set clown to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is the Bill to facilitate the transfer of business from one organisation to another. During the earlier stages of the Bill I asked the noble Lord whether he could give an undertaking that the British Air Corporations would not be asked to make further concessions of business to any other organisation. The noble Lord was unable on that occasion to give me any undertaking. He said in fact that there was still the remainder of the package to announce. What I therefore now ask him is when the remainder of that package will be announced. I am sure he understands as well as any of us that it is essential to end the uncertainty in this matter. It really is not fair on the Air Corporations to leave them in any doubt as to what sector of their business will be theirs next week or the week after, and I therefore ask, before we give this Bill a Third Reading, if we are going to give it a Third Reading, whether he will say when this period of uncertainty is to be ended.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely important to end the period of uncertainty, which is bound to exist, as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I am not able to give a firm date on which we shall announce the remainder of the package. All I can say is that it is in everybody's interest that it should be announced as soon as possible. I hope that the House will be content with that assurance.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is it not a little surprising that the Bill comes before us on Third Reading without our having full knowledge of what is in it? With most Bills, if the contents are not included in the Bill itself they are in the Schedule. Here we are asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill without even knowing what is in it. This

15
seems the most astonishing arrangement. It is an enabling Bill to allow something to be done without any statement of what it is. I have heard Members on the other side and in another place say in the past that this is a peculiar way of conducting business; that, while other Governments might do it, they would never do it. Is it not time that they looked at their own past remarks and made sure that no Bill came before us in this condition?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is under some misapprehension. What we are doing is to declare what the law is. It is not a question of what is in the Bill; the Bill merely declares what the law is. There is nothing behind it, in the sense that there is a package involved in the Bill. There is, of course, the prospect that some of the routes at present operated by the national Air Corporations will be transferred. What this Bill does is to declare that it is possible for these routes to be taken away so far as the Air Corporations are concerned and for licences to be given to B.U.A./Caledonian to operate them. This is not in the Bill. The Bill declares that the existing law will already permit this to be done.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is the responsibility of any Minister who is responsible for a Bill going through the House to give some form of view as to what the Bill really entails, now that it has gone through Committee and is submitted for Third Reading?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been present throughout the debates on this Bill. The point here is that it was recognised that in order to get this new company, B.U.A./Caledonian, off the ground it would be necessary to transfer routes to the value of a certain amount from the Air Corporations to B.U.A./Caledonian. That amount has been stated at not exceeding 2½ to 3 per cent. of the total route revenue of B.O.A.C. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked about was the exact composition of routes to be transferred. We know what is involved financially and quantitatively. What is not yet certain
16
is what the exact composition of the routes is to be.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, the Minister will agree that I have obtained from him what I requested. He is an old Parliamentarian, like myself, coming from another place. We have got from him to-day something that he was not prepared to give in the first place; he has explained the reason for the Third Reading and what is in the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure whether we are not out of order; this is not a Committee stage but a Third Reading. I would make one correction to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, and ask one further question. I have not asked to-day what is the exact composition of this package. All I have asked is: when shall we know the remainder of the package, so that the uncertainty can end? The noble Lord is unable to give the answer, which is really important. I now ask a further question: can he give an undertaking that the open-ended powers in this Bill will lapse or be subsumed when the promised new aviation legislation comes before the House?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, certainly it will be for the House to decide what the powers of the new Civil Aviation Authority will be, and it would be quite wrong for me to predict exactly what they should be. All I can do is to repeat what I have said before: that it is not the intention that these powers should be used again. It is not the intention that these powers should be used again in this way once they have been used for the package. It has happened in the past, and it may be necessary in the future, that the powers are used where, for one reason or another, a route is abandoned. In such a case it is necessary to use the powers in order immediately to exempt whoever wants to operate that route from the necessity of getting a licence from the Air Transport Licensing Board; the new operator is then able to operate the route without such a licence. I have given the assurances that the noble Lord wants: that the Government will not delay longer than necessary the announcement of this package; and, secondly, that it is not intended to use these powers again in this way. May I say one other thing to the noble Lord,

17
Lord Slater? Throughout the passage of this Bill in both Houses the basis on which we have been operating has been the Statement that was made on August 3 last, which made clear the intention of the Government in this respect.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill passed accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Drunialbyn.)
3.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall now pass?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray, L.

Robbins, L.

Alport, L.

Grenfell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Auckland, L.

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

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Sackville, L.

Balfour, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hawke, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bethell, L.

Headford, M.

St. Just, L.

Boothby, L.

Helsby, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bourne, L.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Brecon, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Brock, L.

Howe, E.

Shannon, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ilford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Burton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Cawley, L.

Ironside, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Sudeley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinton, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Tenby, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wolverton, L.

Essex, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blackett, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

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

Stocks, Bs.

Constantine, L.

Stonham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Faringdon, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Peddie, L.

White, Bs.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Willis, L.

Heycock, L.

Royle, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Liability for oil pollution]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Government a question which arises both on this Bill and on the Bill which we are to discuss immediately afterwards. I think it can as conveniently be taken under Clause 1 stand part as anywhere. The question is about the powers of the Governments of this country to seize ships. This clause of this Bill lays liability on shipowners in respect of sea pollution. Cases may be brought under that clause in the courts to which the Government may be party. The courts may award damages against the shipowner to the Government, or to the Government acting on behalf of local authorities or other parties, and the liable party may then fail to pay. In that case, have the Government sufficient powers to detain either the ship itself which was responsible for the original damage, if it is a British-registered ship or a ship which happens to be in this country; or, even more important, to detain another ship belonging to the same owner as that against which liability has been awarded, or, indeed, to distrain on other property of that owner?
I lay special emphasis on the latter point because I have seen a report of a court case, the precise circumstances of which are not familiar to me though they will be to the Government, in which the judgment appeared to cast doubt on the right of the British Government to seize a second ship belonging to the owner of a first ship which had incurred liability—or criminal liability, I forget which—
20
for pollution or for accident (again I forget which, but it does not affect the issue in this case). The question arises as much in the case of the next Bill which will come before the Committee of your Lordships' House and which concerns criminal liability as it does under the present Bill, which concerns civil liability. It may be that one of the Ministers concerned will find it convenient to give an explanation of the present situation to-day at either of the Committee stages. If they do not, so far as noble Lords on this side of the Committee are concerned, it will be quite all right if, at a convenient point in the Report debates on either of these Bills we can have the answer then. But I feel that the Committee would find it an advantage to know what is the actual sanction of power which backs up the liabilities and powers which are being introduced by these two Bills.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has asked about the power of the Government to detain ships. That is, in one case, the ship from which oil has actually escaped, or has been discharged, and which causes pollution damage. This is a question rather more for the next Bill than for this, because here, as he rightly said, we are dealing with civil liability, and it is those who have a claim arising out of Clause 1 of the Bill who would go to the court and ask for an order to detain the ship. One effect of Clause 13(1), which makes it clear that claims under Clause 1 come within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, is that by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Administration of Justice Act claims arising under this Bill will be included among those for which proceedings in rem can be taken. In such proceedings the ship which is the subject of the action, or a ship under the same ownership, may be arrested and may be security for any judgment.
The noble Lord is well aware that in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" it was possible to arrest in Singapore a ship under the same ownership. If proceeding are brought in personam a judgment can be enforced against a ship within our jurisdiction in the same way as against any other chattel. If the Government were the claimant, then no doubt the court would allow the Government to detain the ship. Further points which

21
assist in the enforcement of judgments are that if an owner wishes to limit his liability he has to pay the amount of the limitation fund into court. This will be available to claimants. In addition, the provisions for compulsory insurance, mutual enforcement of judgments and direct action against insurers are designed to strengthen further the position of the claimant. The noble Lord will also be aware, from reading the Bill, that on payment into court of the sum specified in the Bill (which is related to the tonnage of the ship), to cover the liability, the ship would be released. I hope this covers what the noble Lord wanted to know, but if there is anything further I shall be glad to deal with it at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD KENNET: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. On hearing it like that, I think it does cover everything that was worrying me, but perhaps I can read it to-morrow in Hansard. I am glad to know that the noble Lord will not be averse to corning back to it if need be.
LORD HAWKE: Suppose the ship is a one-vessel fleet and is a total loss: how do the Government proceed against the insurance company if it is a foreign company? Have they any power to distrain on some other ship which it happens to be insuring in our ports?
LORD DRUMALBYN: One of the problems in legislation of this sort is bringing to book certain kinds of offender where they have no property in this country and where it is not possible to lay hands on any. This is a real difficulty. If this was the one ship in the ownership of one person, and that ship sank, then it would be very hard to meet that situation within any kind of Bill. The question would be whether the owner had any assets, and whether it was possible to get at those assets from this country.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exceptions from liability under section 1]:
3.30 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, after ("hostilities") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 states that a shipowner does not incur any
22
liability if pollution occurs from—and I quote from paragraph (a):
"an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection "—
and so far I think all is plain sailing—
"or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon".
It seems to me, as it will seem to all of your Lordships—and, indeed, to all persons who have ever sailed the seas—that one keeps on meeting exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomena. They are called storms. A storm is exceptional in that most days there are not storms; but one day there is a storm and it is exceptional. It is certainly natural and, according to the size of your ship, it may or may not be irresistible; this is simply a matter of scale. In moving to delete those words, to get rid of the concept of the exceptional storm which lets the tanker owner off his liability, it seems to me that I am really suggesting that the Committee should close a very large loophole in this Bill. Because, of course, it would not be good enough if a chap could come to court and be able to prove that as there was a Force 9 wind blowing it was not his fault. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment, because the interpretation of this subsection could be so broad that the sea lawyers, qualified lawyers and even Lord Chancellors could have a whale of a time interpreting it. The semantics may look all right, but the logic and the law would certainly give a judge, let alone a Welsh layman, a headache in trying to interpret them. Paragraph (a) states:
"resulted from an act of war, hostilities "—
that is clear—
"civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon"
But if I were a little fellow running a tanker up the River Severn, I could make a good case for saying that on that special day the tidal bore upset my ship and spilled the oil on the waters, and that would exempt me from paying compensation because the tidal bore is an
"inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon".
Once in my life I was in a typhoon in the China Seas and I never want to be in

23
one again. But I believe that I could interpret that as exceptional, and could even say the same about the North Sea when some of us have had rough passages.
Without asking now for skilled legal interpretation, I really believe that this phrase should be narrowed, if possible; otherwise, most people could find an exemption at any time they were sailing on one of the Seven Seas. Although I may have appeared a little jocular about the interpretation, it is clear that there is a need for a more precise and concise interpretation of these words. Therefore, I support my noble friend and I thank the Committee for its attention.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely the paragraph cannot mean a storm or a hurricane or a typhoon, because they are not "exceptional". It surely means a tidal wave or an earthquake. I do not see how the noble Lord can use the argument of a typhoon or a hurricane. I should not call them at all exceptional.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The noble Viscount should be aware, if he has read his Henry IV, that when Owen Glendower was born there was a storm, but it was an exceptional storm. He will also know that Hotspur said that he, too, could call spirits from the deep; and in any storm a captain on the seas can occasionally call spirits from the deep. The point is that nobody, except the crew of the ship, is on the spot when the storm takes place. If it is a storm with cyclonic conditions it may have a radius of only five or ten miles. Not even the coastguard or the lighthouse keeper will be aware of its being in a certain spot, and who can deny my interpretation as captain of the ship? I believe that these words need looking at again.
LORD HAWKE: I think the fact that the noble Lord is standing opposite us at the moment is proof that typhoons are not necessarily irresistible. The word "irresistible" really governs this paragraph because the master mariner is expected, and expects, to weather typhoons, storms and so on, but is not prepared to cope with earthquakes and tidal waves. I am sure that "irresistible" is the key word in this phrase.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In dealing with this Bill, I think we have to bear in mind—it is perhaps as well that I say this now, because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is very well aware of it—that its main purpose is to enable the Government to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. This clause reflects the Convention, and the Convention states in almost identical words:
"No liability for pollution damage shall attach to the owner if he proves that the damage resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character "
and so on. I recognise that your Lordships will want some reason for this being contained in the Convention, and will want to know why it was that those who attended the Convention reached that conclusion. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is also to leave out the word "insurrection". He did not mention that, and I am not quite sure whether he meant it. But there is a slightly declining order of intensity from "war, hostilities, civil war" to "insurrection" which is, as it were, midway between riot and civil war.
The Convention then goes on,
"… or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character."
This exception is rather similar to the defence known as Act of God in English law. But the meaning of Act of God has never been clearly established and is difficult to translate into other languages and systems of law, especially in those countries which do not recognise God anyway. This exception was therefore intended to be both clear and more limited. If I were asked to give an example of what was at one and the same time exceptional, inevitable and irresistible, I should be very hard put to it to do so, and it is necessary to cover the cases which one cannot think of. I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord moved the next Amendment at the same time.
LORD KENNET: I moved Amendment No. 1 only, but I should have explained that I was speaking to Nos. 1 and 2 together. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 3 separately.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that

25
we are merely following up the Convention here. It may be that I shall have to say that more than once in the course of our consideration of this Bill.
LORD KENNET: First of all, let me disclaim any intention of haggling about the details of where one might propose to cut this clause. If "insurrection" is particularly important and should be left in, then let us leave it in and I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the desirability of deleting the words thereafter. The noble Lord has said that this is the form of words in the Convention, and that in this Bill we are following the Convention. I quite take the point. It is a strong point, but I should like to put the opposite point to the Committee.
If the noble Lord were to come to this House and say, "There is something in the Convention which we are not reproducing in our Bill because we think it goes too far", then that would be a difficult ground to defend and this House, and indeed any national Parliament, would probably be right to chastise this Government for excessive nationalism in lagging behind the other Governments of the world. If, on the other hand., a national Parliament to whom was submitted an international Instrument for ratification (which is what is being done now) were to find out that it did not go quite far enough, and was faced by the argument—as I submit this Committee is now faced by the argument—from the Government that, because, the international community had been prepared to go only one mile forward, therefore we in this country must not go two miles forward, then I believe that that national Parliament would be justified in rejecting the argument and saying, "Maybe they have only gone so far, but we ought to go farther. We shall have a better national law if we go farther than the international Convention suggests we should go." That is really the gist of my argument in moving this deletion.
Lastly, I think the noble Lord said that it was his purpose to cover something which he could not think of. It would be our purpose, the purpose of those on this side, to leave uncovered anything which we cannot think of, so that if something happens which never occurred to anybody the man will be
26
liable for the damages he causes rather than he should be let off simply because of the mere unthinkability in advance of what has happened. I should like this Bill to cover contingencies, not to leave them deliberately uncovered. It is not my intention to press this Amendment at this stage. I do not believe that the argument, "It is in the Convention, therefore that is all we should do", is a good one. I am glad that the Government are going as far as the Convention. I would urge them to go further in this respect, and I would urge the noble Lord to consider this wording again between now and the next stage to see whether he cannot meet the points we have made by agreeing to the deletion of these words and allowing this country to get a little bit ahead of the international community, though not so far ahead as other countries (and I instance in particular Canada), before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that a Convention of this kind represents a coming together of interests of various kinds. What this Bill does is to impose a liability of a strict character on the owner of the vessel. Now there are exceptions to that strictness. What the noble Lord is asking us to do is to make it a little more strict. The difficulty here is that in the course of the Convention there has inevitably been a lot of argument as to what the insurable limit is, and in arriving at the figures in the Bill, for example, which we shall come to, this has been taken into account. It would be difficult to alter the limits of coverage without at the same time altering the financial limits. They are all worked in together, and they are all part of the Convention. This is the problem here. I am not saying that at no part of the Bill have we not gone a little further than the Convention, but not in matters which affect all members of the Convention. Where we have gone a little further, it is entirely within our own jurisdiction.
Loan KENNET: I take that argument, and I think it is a strong one, but I wonder whether at the next stage, when we come back to this, as I think we should, the noble Lord will be able to tell us about present and intended legislation in the United States and in Canada, and whether all that is entirely

27
free of anything which might possibly be held to affect the liability levels later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

LAOS: SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY OPERATION
3.44 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may now answer the Private Notice Question which has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; namely, Whether, in view of the now confirmed reports of extensive fighting in Laos, consequent upon the operation made by the Army of South Vietnam, the Government will make a Statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as Co-Chairman of the 1961 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on February 3, he was willing at any time to join with the Co-Chairman to reconvene the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter. He repeated this to the Soviet Ambassador on the following day. The action which has now been taken by South Vietnamese forces in Laos is a direct consequence of the flagrant violation of Laotian neutrality by North Vietnamese troops which has been going on for years. When those troops proceed to kill South Vietnamese, the reaction of that country is fully understandable.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the reply which the noble Marquess has given me to my Private Notice Question. He will be aware of the very deep concern in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, at any extension of the fighting in South-East Asia. We recognise the difficulties of Her Majesty's Government, as Co-Chairman of the Conference, in dealing with the situation, but the recent developments in Laos must give us particular concern.
May I ask the noble Marquess three questions? First, has there been an
28
official approach to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Laos? Secondly, do the Government think that there is reason for a special initiative by the Co-Chairmen in this matter; and, if they do not feel that a special initiative is warranted, perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us why not. Thirdly, in view of the importance of our own relations in South-East Asia, and in view of what is, we understand, the new relationship between the Prime Minister and President Nixon, may I ask the noble Marquess whether there has been consultation between the Prime Minister and President Nixon on this matter?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while appreciating what was said in the Answer which the noble Marquess has just given, may I inquire, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, whether the Government feel that this operation by the South Vietnamese Army is likely to assist the process of withdrawal of the United States forces from South Vietnam? And would they not perhaps agree that when this withdrawal has been completed the future of South Vietnam will have to be decided by free elections in accordance with the decision of the Geneva Conference of 1954?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his comments, and I will attempt to answer the three questions which he put to me. So far as my information goes, there has been no official approach from the Laotian Government to Her Majesty's Government on this point. I think we all recognise the seriousness of the situation, and I do not want for one minute to underestimate that. That is why my right honourable friend said that he is still hoping that it will be possible to reconvene the Conference. I think that we shall have to watch the situation very closely, and I will certainly undertake to pass on to him what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said regarding perhaps taking a special initiative in this matter. On the noble Lord's third point, we were not consulted specifically by the American Government about this matter, although of course we are, as the noble Lord will appreciate, in consultation with them on a number of matters related to South-East Asia.

29
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked whether this matter would help the eventual American withdrawal from South Vietnam. I think that this is a very difficult question to answer offhand. The point of the present operation, so far as the South Vietnamese are concerned—and, indeed, with what support they have had from the American Army—is of course to bring the war to an end at the soonest possible time and to hasten the process of what they call the "Vietnamisation" of the war. The noble Lord also asked me a question as to what might happen after the war regarding free elections. I think that perhaps this is something that will have to wait a little longer, my Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite. Often they have to speak for Departments in which they are not directly concerned. The noble Marquess is a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, if I may say so, I think it very unsatisfactory for him to come here and say that he does not quite know whether there has been an approach by the Government of Laos. It must be the case either that there has been an approach or that there has not been an approach. I should have thought that the noble Marquess could give us a consistent answer to that question. I should also have thought that he could give a reason why Her Majesty's Government have thought it improper or inopportune to take a special initiative as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference in the light of the very dangerous, and developingly dangerous, situation in South-East Asia. Can the noble Marquess give any further assurances in this matter?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I can. As I thought I said in my original Answer, we are watching this situation very carefully. My right honourable friend, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, is, I know, only too anxious to do what he can to bring the situation under control. I am sorry that the noble Lord perhaps somewhat misinterpreted what I said previously. There has been no approach from the Laotian Government. I can give that assurance.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess still has not given us a
30
reason why a special initiative has not been taken.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that the first thing to do in this matter is to try to re-convene the Conference. This is what the Geneva Conference is about: it is to try to settle the problem in Laos. I think that at this stage it is up to the Soviet authorities to come forward and agree to talk about the matter.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that, what-ever philosophy of politics they may take, most sensible beings in the Western World are now feeling that this war has reached the height of brutality and that it is paying no tribute at all to the so-called free Western civilisation? May I ask whether the noble Marquess has asked his right honourable friend whether or not he has been in touch with the Soviet Union as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conferences of 1961, 1962 and 1954? Is he further aware that Chou En-lai himself said to me in Peking that if we could have left Laos as it was after the great efforts of Sir Anthony Eden (he mentioned him in particular) we should have had that neutrality? As one who has been on the spot, may I say that that neutrality was not broken by the North Vietnamese, as was borne home when the United Nations investigated an alleged invasion? The whole situation has grown to what it now is from a pack of half-truths—and in some cases direct lies.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend has been in touch with the Soviet Authorities on this point, through their Ambassador in London. On his rather more general points as to the causes of this sad situation, I do not think that he would expect me to comment very much. I think that one must agree that the action taken by the South Vietnamese forces at the moment has been provoked by the fact that the North Vietnamese have been unable to recognise the neutrality of Laos.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am encouraged by the fact that the noble Marquess has been more forthcoming to my noble friend. Am I to understand now that the Foreign Secretary has

31
been in touch with the Soviet Government since the invasion of Laos by the South Vietnamese forces?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend saw the Ambassador of the Soviet Union on, I think, February 4. At that time we were not quite certain what was happening.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, would the noble Marquess appreciate that in the operations last year, operations which were conducted by the Americans and supported by the Vietnamese, the Communists lost 80 per cent. of their lines of communication, and that what they are trying to do now, and have been trying to do ever since, is to replace the port of Sihanoukville by strengthening up the Ho-Chi-minh trial? Therefore, may I ask what is the difference between this operation, now being undertaken by the South Vietnamese and supported by the Americans, and the same sort of operation that took place last year?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that in many way there is little difference: both are preventive actions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the grave danger that the war in Vietnam may now be extended to Laos and to South-East Asia, may I ask the noble Marquess these questions? First, is it not the case that the Government of Laos, which is sincerely neutralistic, has opposed both the intervention of Communist troops and, now, the troops in Saigon supported by the American Government? Is it not the case that any intervention of foreign troops was prohibited by the agreement of the Geneva Conference, of which we are joint Chairman? And is not the action of Her Majesty's Government in endorsing the Saigon, American-supported, intervention now prejudicing the opportunity of Her Majesty's Government to contribute constructively and usefully to a solution of this problem?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is true that the Laotian position is one of neutrality; and I do not think that that is disputed. I think it is also true to say that the Laotian Government
32
take the view that their neutrality has been violated for a great many years by the North Vietnamese. We want to do what we can to stop the war. That is why my right honourable friend will carry on with his endeavours to try to get the Conference reconvened. But, as the noble Lord will realise, this is a matter for the Russian Government as well as for ourselves.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I commiserate with the noble Marquess, for this is a difficult subject? Would he undertake to see his right honourable friend and to ask him whether, in the light of the present circumstances and the very considerable dangers that are inherent in the position, this is not the moment, yet again, to make an approach to them as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can certainly give that undertaking. I shall convey exactly what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, as my noble friend and as Lord Shepherd has said, this is an important matter. It is. I understand, the Answer to a Private Notice Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. So far as I know, it has been our custom for Private Notice Questions normally to be taken after Oral Questions, unless a Statement was to be made in the House of Commons which made it necessary for them to be taken after 3.30 p.m. Your Lordships' House was very full at Question Time; and I am sure that a number of noble Lords would have liked to hear the questions and answers on this particular subject. Would it not be better in the future that where no Statement is made in the House of Commons, a Private Notice Question of this kind should be taken at a definite time, immediately after Oral Questions?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is a matter for what one would call the usual channels. In this particular instance, a precisely similar Question was tabled this afternoon in the House of Commons for answer at a certain moment after 3.30 p.m. Therefore I think it was felt, with the agreement of noble Lords opposite, that it would be appropriate to take it at that time.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (b) in Clause 2, which says that if the person liable can prove that the damage was due to
"anything done or left undone by another person … with intent to do damage"
he is not liable. Of course, this, too, is in the Convention, as the noble Lord could tell the Committee; and I am sure that he will tell the Committee that it is a very reasonable exemption from liability. So it is, on the face of it, and if one were to think in terms of an analogy with one's own private life one could instance spilling petrol on the road, or a motor accident, and one would indeed think it right that one should not be held liable, if the harm was done with malice and intent by someone else.
When we are dealing with possible pollution damage on such a colossal scale as this, running into tens of millions of pounds and affecting several countries at the same time, I believe that it might be justifiable to look at it in a different light. This is a question of the mad bomber, or the mad person with a one-man torpedo, or plastic mine, which he sticks on the bottom of a tanker on purpose; or a mad lighthouse keeper who deliberately shuts off the light when a super-tanker is passing. We are dealing with madness. Is not the risk of such a mad action a very calculable one? I should have thought that it was.
Tanker owners and oil companies know perfectly well the incidence of such actions over recent years. They would be able to make a reasonable forecast of the probable extent in future and get perfectly good insurance cover against the risk for a not very greatly increased premium. If that is so, as it may very well be, there is no particular reason to leave this loophole in the liability under the law of a nation which has very much at stake in pollution matters, as we have.
I move this Amendment in the same tone of voice as I moved the other two; not, of course, intending to press them at this stage, but to ask whether the Government would not be prepared to go ahead with the Convention in this respect; whether they have consulted shipowners and the oil companies about the possibility of so doing; and whether we can come back to the matter at a later stage.
LORD HAWKE: I would not suggest for a moment that Her Majesty's Government should go beyond the Convention, but I do suggest that the Convention must be a pretty silly looking affair if you come to consider that this is not a Bill for punishment but a Bill for indemnification. To the people who suffer the pollution loss it does not matter whether the cause of the accident is one that the shipowner could have prevented or one that he could not possibly have prevented. They want to be indemnified and, of course, insurance is a method of indemnification. I should not think that it would add greatly to the insurance premium to cover these extremely rare or
"exceptional, inevitable and irresistible"
actions by parties
"not being a servant or agent of the owner "—
and so on. It is a matter of calculation, and for the people damaged by the pollution it is a very unsatisfactory Bill because in all these events they are going to get no compensation whatsoever. Therefore I submit that the Convention, having arrived at this particular thing, has been muddling up punishment and indemnification and has produced a pretty daft result.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I certainly cannot complain of the logic of either of the noble Lords who have spoken, but I am afraid that again I must come back to the fact that we are here trying to pass preliminary legislation which will enable us to ratify a Convention. I am sure that the arguments put forward by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were rehearsed at great length in arriving at the Convention. But the Convention did arrive at these exceptions to the rule of strict liability, and it is very difficult to see how we can depart from them.

35
I think that the noble Lord himself recognises that these exceptions are, so to speak, pretty far-fetched. Apart from war, hostilities, insurrection and so on, the whole of the other exceptions are pretty far-fetched, so they are unlikely to affect us in any considerable manner, at any rate in this part of the world. There could be sabotage or madness—sabotage may be a form of madness, but it is pretty deliberate madness sometimes. That kind of sabotage would be more in line with civil war, an act of war, and hostilities and that sort of thing. I think one can justify this in our own terms—this particular exception, a deliberate act or omission by a third party with intent to cause damage. One can justify it in terms that it is close to what is known in law as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, which imposes a form of strict liability on the occupier of land for damage done by the escape of things he has brought on to the land. The exceptions there to that rule of law—that is, acts of God and the action of a third party—are practically the same as we have here in the Convention.
I take the point, and I sympathise with the noble Lord's argument that in this case it is really on a much bigger scale, though that would not necessarily be so. One can think of examples where the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher might apply on a big scale within our own country. All the same, the fact that it is well precedented so far as our own law is concerned is in itself a justification for adhering to the Convention decision in this matter.
There is, perhaps, another reason that I ought to give to the Committee, because it may crop up again later on. It is that this is the sort of Convention where it is particularly important that the law of all the member countries should be identical because occurrences may affect more than one country, as it did in the case of the "Torrey Canyon". Proceedings may be taken in either of those countries. Wherever the deposit in respect of liability or security is made there the case will be heard. In the other country the result will be registered, and the funds will be distributed between the claimants in the two countries; and it will all be on the basis of one common law. So it really is important that we should stick to the terms of the Convention. Unless we
36
do so, it will be difficult for us to ratify the Convention and get the benefit of it. I am sorry, but I am unable to accept this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: Between now and the next stage I will read Rylands v. Fletcher if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will do something that I shall come to in a moment, which would make it "fair dos." I do not know the case, and it may be that what I am about to say is irrelevant; if so, I apologise in advance. But one must be careful about carrying over provisions in the law which are very appropriate when a man is doing something which he has to do because he earns his living in that way. If a farmer has a silo filled with some noxious substance and if a mad bomber comes and blows it up which inflicts damage on his neighbour, the law appropriate to that is one sort of law, because the farmer is a farmer, and that is the way he earns his living. The oil tanker companies, though they have to earn their living, do it on purpose. They exist for the sole purpose of carrying these vast quanties of oil. But they are not bound to carry these vast quantities around. They could very easily carry smaller quantities more frequently in smaller ships. It is solely their own choice, because it is more profitable for them to go round the world in supertankers. The Parliaments of the world therefore have to introduce legislation like this to cover what may happen if the tankers are wrecked.
The noble Lord said that the law in all Convention countries had to be identical on this point. Could he let us know at the next stage whether the United States and Canadian law allow these exemptions and is likely to continue to do so? I lay particular stress on Canadian law. If this is not so, then his argument about the necessity for uniformity in all Convention countries goes by the board and can no longer be adduced. If it is so, then I think that this is a powerful matter. Secondly, the noble Lord said that our ratification of the Convention could be challenged if our law went ahead of it in any respect. I wonder if that is so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I said that it is not our practice to ratify unless our law is in conformity with the Convention. Of course, the same would apply

37
to other countries. The United States, if its law was not in accordance with the terms of the Convention, could not ratify it and could only do so if it brought its law into line with it.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord knows that there are penumbras in this matter and that it is very difficult to decide whether a given provision in national law will or will not lay one open to challenge by another party to a Convention on the validity of one's ratification thereof. I wonder whether the deletions I am suggesting here are such as to lay us open to the likelihood of challenge on the matter of our adhesion to the Convention itself by other member States. If the noble Lord says that that is so, then of course I will withdraw my Amendments, but if he is not yet, as I suspect he is not yet, in a position to state categorically that it is the fact, that there would be an appreciable risk of actual challenge by other Convention signatories if these deletions were to be made—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not say that. What I said was that we could not ratify—I mean ratify without reservations—unless our law was in accordance with the Convention. We can ratify with reservations, of course, but in order for the Convention to come into force at all a certain number of ratifications without reservation are required, and we are hoping that we will be able to ratify without reservation and so discourage other people from making reservations.
LORD KENNET: I am sure that the Committee will agree that we have been round this point quite enough at the moment. With leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment, with the the intention of coming back to it at the next stage, if I may be allowed to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Limitation of liability under s.1.]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("2,000 gold francs") and insert ("such amount as may be fixed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: I would speak to Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 together, since they have one single effect. The effect is to leave the concept of a limitation of liability out of the Bill as it is drafted by taking the actual figure to which the liability is to be limited from the Bill and allowing the Secretary of State instead to prescribe from lime to time by regulation what that figure shall be.
If I may sketch in the background to the proposal, my reasons for doing this are as follows. This Convention, with its limit of 2,000 gold francs, was negotiated in 1969, and it bears a close relationship, which I should not like to define in any more detail, to an organisation, TOVALOP—that is, the tanker owners' voluntary system for insuring themselves against liability—which has set up a fund on which tanker owners can draw, if they have damages awarded against them, up to a certain limit, which is the same as the limit that is written into the Convention. So the process we see here is that the industry voluntarily agree to cover themselves up to a certain point—that is, normally about 85 per cent. of tanker tonnage of the world. The nations of the world then sign a Convention saying that that is the right level, which is compulsory for the remaining 15 per cent. This, in my opinion, is the right way to do it.
But the industry have gone beyond this Convention. They have set up a second fund, CRISTAL but this has been set up not by the tanker owners but by the oil companies, once again representing about 85 per cent. of the tonnage of oil carried by sea in the world. They agree to cover themselves against claims up to a very much higher limit than TOVALOP—namely, up to 30 million dollars per accident. I think I am right in saying that the Convention limit we have before us now is £5·8 million, or between 12 and 13 million dollars per accident.
If history proceeds as it has been going in the past, and I think we may all hope it will, IMCO will come up with another Convention in a year or two—indeed, it is already beginning on this—which will give, as it were, statutory international force to the higher level of 30 million dollars. When that happens, Her Majesty's Government will have to come before Parliament once again seeking

39
approval of a complete new Bill, saying that progress has been made, that everybody is accepting his responsibilities making this double liability necessary. It may be that in future, if we get to million-ton tankers, there will have to be changes even in the 30-million dollar limit. One may imagine 20 or 30 years hence—though I hope it will not happen—the need for a liability of 100 million dollars per accident.
The purpose of my Amendments is simply to avoid having a new Bill every time. What I propose is that we take out the figure and let the Secretary of State prescribe by regulation, in the first place, the limit of £5·8 million—as I am sure the noble Lord would be able to tell us he would do, if he accepts the Amendment. Then if a new Convention was agreed by a sufficiency of States, he would be able to put the limit up to 30 million dollars without troubling Parliament again, except to the extent of laying an Order before it subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in either House. I regard it as given that such a Resolution would neither be carried nor even moved. The purpose of my Amendments is to avoid the difficulty of Parliamentary time, because under any Government, of any colour, it would be difficult to find a moment to get in a Bill simply to raise this limit to a new Convention level. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As the noble Lord said, the effect of these Amendments is twofold. First of all, it would exclude completely the ceiling contained in subsection (1)(b) of this clause, which is 210 million gold francs or £5·8 million. Secondly, it would leave the amount to which a shipowner might limit his liability by reference to the tonnage of a ship to be fixed from time to time by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument. There is a good argument for this on one assumption, the assumption that the noble Lord made; namely, that it is possible in the near future for the figures in the Convention to be altered. But I am afraid that there is very little chance of that. I think one has to bear in mind that, so far as the 1958 Convention is concerned, it was ten or eleven years before sufficient signatures were collected to the Convention to bring it into operation at all. It is not a common thing to
40
have Conventions altered quickly. There is a procedure laid down for the Convention to be reconvened, on the demand of a certain number of signatories, but it is not very likely to happen in the near future.
The noble Lord also referred to TOVALOP and CRISTAL, the two schemes. So far as CRISTAL is concerned, we very much hope that there will be an international conference in order to establish this fund on a compulsory basis. But if and when that happens, it will not in any sense be in replacement of the figures in this clause; it will be on top of them, because whoever is going to be responsible for funding this will be meeting compensation for damage over and above the damage with which we are concerned in this Bill. So that the figures in this Bill would not be altered. It would simply mean, as the noble Lord said, that the maximum compensation payable in the absence of fault or privity in the case of the shipowner under this Bill would remain at £5·8 million or £56 per ton, whichever is the less, and on top of that it would be possible from this other fund to get additional compensation. This is the way that it would work.
I think that the argument which the noble Lord had in mind—which is a perfectly sensible argument on his own premises—is really destroyed by the absence of any likelihood that there will be in the near future any variation to the figures in the Bill. It is not the first time that figures of limitation have been expressed in gold francs. They were expressed in gold francs, I think for the first time (it was altered from sterling), in the 1958 Act. I agree that it would be possible for us to adhere to the figures of the Convention and then not to put them in the Bill. That would be possible. But there is the danger that if we did so we might convey a false impression to other countries that were thinking of ratifying that we were going to fix limits according to our own sweet will without regard to the Convention. This would be a pity. There is really no advantage in not sticking to the figures in the Bill, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: I find this rather worse than I had expected, and indeed rather alarming. I had expected the

41
noble Lord to say: "It is quite all right. Don't bother to take the figures out of the Bill because as soon as we get a Convention with a higher liability limit in it we shall without doubt—and I hereby give an undertaking—find Parliamentary time for a small Bill either to amend this one or to impose a new separate higher limit." But the noble Lord, far from saying that, has said: "Well, don't take this limit out of the Bill, because there is hardly any chance at all of our ever being able to raise it by international Convention."
LORD DRUMALBYN: In the near future.
LORD KENNET: We shall not be able to do it in the near future—the noble Lord corrects me. It was my understanding that IMCO were already working on the possibility, and were proposing to hold a conference this year to set up a fund which should cover the distance between 12 million or 13 million dollars per accident and 30 million dollars per accident; that when this fund was agreed there should be an international Convention about it and members of IMCO should be once again invited to ratify that Convention and to bring their domestic liabilities into line with it. The mere fact that it would be two funds as opposed to one fund, is I submit, neither here not there. If the total liability, which is what concerns the Parliament of the country, goes up from 12 million dollars to 30 million dollars—this is the point—whether it is done by one fund, two funds or thirty funds is neither here nor there. The issue between the court and the polluter is: how much can you pay? How much are we going to enforce upon you?
I will study what the noble Lord has said. It may be that I have misunderstood the drift of his argument, and if so, no doubt I shall understand it in Hansard to-morrow. But at first flush I regard this as a rather serious matter, because I take it to be a declaration that the Government are not going to press very hard for a second Convention raising the liability limit; that they do not believe that such a thing is likely; that if such a thing does come about the Government are not going to ratify it immediately, and if they do ratify they do not feel that they are going to be in any way hampered by
42
the pre-existence on the Statute Book of a liability limit only half what the new one might be.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must be very had at expressing myself to the noble Lord, because I know that he is a very intelligent man. We are here dealing with legislation to bring into operation an international Convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, and Clause 1 puts the liability—which is a strict liability, but a limited one—on the owner. The next stage is going to be to say: who else can pay? The amount we are putting on the owner is the maximum for which he can obtain insurance, and we are limited by that. If the insurers will not insure for more than that, one will not get ratification of the Convention and the whole thing will fall down. One has to face these facts. It is precisely because one cannot put a greater liability on the owner and the insurer that these further compensations for the second tier, so to speak, which will equally be compulsory, is to be provided. But it will not come from the same sources. This is the point. I hope that I have now managed to make the point a little clearer, and I am sorry if I did not do so before.
LORD KENNET: I will not detain the Committee longer, except to say that it is of course possible to impose on somebody a higher liability than he can obtain insurance for. If you do that, he will cease carrying out that activity in an uninsurable way and will commence carrying it out in an insurable way. This comes back to my earlier point: that it is entirely the choice of the tanker owners to use 250,000 ton ships instead of the 50,000 or 100,000 ton ships which are insured. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Limitation actions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: I will be as brief as I can. The noble Lord was kind enough to imply that I was not below average intelligence, but I cannot understand Clause 5 (4). I will not detain the Committee by asking for an explanation now,

43
but if the noble Lord can understand it, will he explain it in Report stage?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If that will be for the convenience of the Committee I will certainly do that.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Compulsory insurance against liability for pollution]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 42, leave out from ("State") to end of line 44.
The noble Lords said: We come now to the kind of certificate which shall be taken as evidence of a shipowner having accepted the liabilities imposed by this Bill and therefore entitling him now to enter and leave the ports of this country. My Amendment is intended to delete one type of certificate. It would leave a certificate given by the British Government for a British registered ship. That is all right. It would leave a certificate given by another Convention Government for one of their own ships. That is all right. It would leave a certificate given by the British Government in respect of particular ships registered in non-Convention countries. This Amendment and Amendment No. 10 would take away the right of the British Government to make blanket regulations certifying and permitting the entry of ships registered in non-Convention countries, and would also take away the right of the British Government to recognise in a blanket way a class of certificate in respect of many ships issued by non-Convention Governments. My purpose is not to make life difficult for the Government in any way, but to remove what, it seems to me, might be an incentive to certain Governments not to join the Convention.
I should like this Parliament to pass a Bill which has this effect: "If we want to trade in and out of Britain we have to become Convention countries. They are going to make life really difficult for us if we do not do so." If we empower the British Government to give blanket exemptions to ships registered in non-Convention countries, I submit that that is making life easier for them than we
44
need to do. It would leave the Secretary of State with the power to issue a certificate in respect of single ships registered in non-Convention countries. That is enough relaxation of pressure from Britain to join the Convention. For the rest, I believe that we should keep up the maximum pressure.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord in this matter, and indeed it is a difficult problem. The Convention lays down that Convention countries must issue the certificates for these ships if they are going to operate; that is to say, a ship can operate only if it has a certificate from a Convention country. The difficulty is: what is to happen in non-Convention countries? All I can do is to put some of the considerations before your Lordships, because if we were to insist that only a certificate from the Secretary of State will enable tankers registered in a non-Convention country to come to this country, there would be two disadvantages. First, there is the practical point of the sheer physical disadvantage of not being able to get the certificate on board that ship before it came to this country, in which case the law would not be complied with. The other disadvantage is that other countries might insist on doing exactly the same thing; each country, Holland, Sweden, and all the rest, would insist that no tanker came to their country unless it had a certificate from the authority of the country to which it was going. This would be awkward.
It would be a mistake not to leave this power in the Bill. This is not a mandatory power; it is a permissive one. I do not doubt for one moment that it will need a good deal of preparation. The object of it must be to ensure that certificates are worth while; that they are given by countries which are able to appreciate the creditability of the insurer or of the person giving the security. It seems to us that it would be a mistake to deny the Government this power, and we think that by putting in this kind of power it will make the negotiations for the establishment of a viable system of certificates that much easier.
I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. If he wishes we can have another look at it. I hope that the system will work out, and I think he

45
should at least give us a chance to work it out.
LORD KENNET: I am very glad indeed that the Government will have another look at this matter. Of the two reasons which the noble Lord gave for maintaining this power, it seems to me that one is quite misconceived and the other cuts in the opposite direction, in favour of the Amendment. The noble Lord said that if the British Government did not have power to issue blanket certificates in respect of ships registered in non-Convention countries, this might be troublesome if other signatories to the Convention were to do the same thing. It would not be troublesome to us, because we should be a Convention country. So we need not worry about that.
The noble Lord spoke of the physical inconvenience of getting an individual certificate from the Secretary of State on board each separate ship registered in a non-Convention country before it came here. This is just the point. The inconvenience would be to the shipowner concerned. He could then take two courses: he could either re-register his ship in a Convention country (which I hope he would), or he could press the Government of the non-Convention country where it is currently registered to join the Convention. And I hope that non-Convention countries will do that, too. It seems to me that the physical inconvenience generated by the Amendment, such as it is, is good for the sake of getting the Convention adopted. How ever, I will not press the Amendment at the moment, but hope that the noble Lord will consider these two arguments before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: Once again I have to ask for a clarification to be made at the next stage. I am puzzled by the relationship between subsection (6) and subsection (7) of Clause 10. In subsection (6) we have the ship that enters or leaves, or attempts to enter or leave, in contravention of this section. If it does that, the master or owner is liable to a fine of up to £15,000. But, under subsection (7), if the master of the ship fails to
46
produce a certificate as required then he is liable only to a fine of £200. But when is it intended that he shall be asked to produce a certificate, except on the occasion of entering or leaving, or attempting to enter or leave, a British port? If he fails to produce a certificate, and continues to attempt to enter or leave, he is then liable to a fine of £15,000, which seems a great deal more than the £200 fine. Does this clause imply that we are to go charging around the High Seas demanding sea certificates in case people attempt to enter and then, if they fail to produce the certificate, and do not attempt to enter, the fine is only £200? If not, why is that minor provision there? Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us at the next stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think it is necessary to wait for the next stage. The essential point here is that the offence has been committed in not having a certificate. The offence is not that of not being insured, because if it were so it would be a very difficult task for magistrates to decide whether a person was insured and fully covered within the terms set down in the Schedule to the Convention. Therefore it was felt that it was necessary to make the certificate the point of action, so to speak. The question is whether there is a certificate on board. It may be that the master, for one reason or another, may not produce it although it is on board. If so, it is not a very serious offence. The really serious offence is not to be insured and therefore not to have the certificate, which is the touchstone so far as the courts in this country will be concerned. This is a very serious offence because of the risk the ship would be running, in case of any accident, of doing very considerable damage.
It was felt that this was in line with the very heavy penalty that is coming along in the next Bill to which my noble friend Lord Sandford will be referring—£50,000. But this £15,000 for not having a certificate was felt to be the right figure. With all these penalties, and the fact that the ship is going to be arrested, if necessary, for non-production of the certificate, if the master of the ship does not produce the certificate for any reason other than that he had not got it, it is not felt that he will go on maintaining that attitude for very long. Nevertheless,

47
it is felt that this was a justifiable distinction—the £200 being quite clearly on the master himself, and the £15,000 being obviously on the owner, although it might be the master who has to pay for it.
LORD KENNET: I quite follow that and thank the noble Lord very much for his full and courteous explanation.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
4.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Shipping casualties
".—(1) The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where—

(a) an accident has occurred to or in a ship, and

(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in the waters in or adjacent to the United Kingdom up to the seaward limits of territorial waters.

(2) For the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, the Secretary of State may give directions as respects the ship or its cargo—

(a) to the owner of the ship, or to any person in possession of the ship, or

(b) to the master of the ship, or

48

(c) to any salvor in possession of the ship, or to any person who is the servant or agent of the salvor, and who is in charge of the salvage operation.

(3) Directions under subsection (2) above may require the person to whom they are given to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the directions may require—

(a) that the ship is to be, or is not to be, moved, or is to be moved to a specified place, or is to be removed from a specified area or locality, or

(b) that the ship is not to be moved to a specified place or area, or over a specified route, or

(c) that any oil or other cargo is to be, or is not to be, unloaded or discharged, or

(d) that specified salvage measures are to be, or are not to be, taken.

(4) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is impracticable to ensure that oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, will be prevented or reduced by the giving of directions under this section, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, take, as respects the ship or its cargo, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the Secretary of State may—

(a) take any such action as he has power to require to be taken by a direction under this section,

(b) undertake operations for the sinking or destruction of the ship, or any part of it, of a kind which is not within the means of any person to whom he can give directions,

(c) undertake operations which involve the taking over of control of the ship.

(5) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above shall also be exercisable by such persons as may be authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State.
(6) If the person to whom a direction is duly given under this section contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement of the direction, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000,

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) above, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction.
(8) If a person wilfully obstructs any person who is acting in compliance with a direction under this section, or who is acting under subsection (4) or (5) of this section, the first mentioned person shall be liable on summary conviction to a file not exceeding £100.

49
(9) No direction under this section shall apply to a ship—

(a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and

(b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom,

and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.
(10) No direction under this section shall apply to any vessel of Her Majesty's Navy, or to any Government ship, and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such vessel or ship.
In this subsection "Government ship" has the same meaning as in section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906.
(11) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any rights or powers of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom exercisable apart from this section.
(12) Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing this section and this section is in that Schedule referred to as "the principal section".
(13) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—
"accident" includes the loss, stranding, abandonment of or damage to a ship,
"specified", in relation to a direction under this section, means specified by the direction."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with the leave of the Committee I suggest that we discuss with it Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, for they all hang together. I said during the Second Reading debate that I proposed to put down a set of Amendments at this stage which would give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry powers either to direct the owners or the salvors of a damaged ship within our territorial waters to take action to avoid pollution or, if necessary, to take action himself. I must first apologise to the Committee for introducing at this late stage such a substantial new provision. The fact is that we are here dealing with a matter which neither this Government nor, I believe, our predecessors had in mind when the original Bill was being prepared. However, the incident involving the tanker "Pacific Glory" late last year—one week before the Second Reading of this Bill in another place—highlighted our vulnerability and the need for the Government to have additional powers. It seemed wise to take advantage of the present Bill to provide such powers as soon as possible.
One result has been that the consultations have been rushed and the new clauses have been prepared with some
50
haste. I am therefore very willing to consider sympathetically any further Amendments which discussion in Committee may show to be desirable. Indeed, further minor Amendments to my Amendment have already been suggested, and I shall be mentioning them now and considering introducing Amendments to give effect to them on Report. And, in order to ensure that adequate time is available for all concerned to give this new clause and this new Schedule full consideration, my noble friend the Chief Whip has agreed that there shall be a clear fortnight between this Committee stage and the next stage, Report.
One of the Conventions signed at Brussels in 1969, which we have now ratified but which is not yet in force, deals with intervention on the high seas in cases of oil pollution casualties, and gives the State power, subject to certain procedures and safeguards, to take measures to forestall a threat of oil pollution arising from a maritime casualty—stranding or a collision. However, there is likely to be even more need to take such measures within our own territorial waters, to which the Convention does not apply.
The general object of the Convention does not need legislative implementation, since we consider that we have power to take any measures we think fit, and any action for compensation by the shipowner or other person injured would, if he were a foreigner, be met with a defence of "Act of State". However, in two cases not covered by the Convention this defence would not be available to Her Majesty's Government; namely, action against any ship in territorial or internal waters; and any action against United Kingdom ships on the high seas. Power to take such action is therefore required, both to protect Her Majesty's Government against legal action by a shipowner or any other person as a result of any measures and to enforce compliance where the measures involve the giving of a direction. This clause will provide the Government with such a power.
We have thought it right that the major emphasis should be placed on a power to give directions, in particular to shipowners and salvors. Under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause the Secretary of State may give directions

51
where oil has escaped or been discharged as a result of an accident, or is likely to do so, and in his opinion pollution on a large scale can be expected to result therefrom. It has since been suggested that the threat of pollution should also need to be imminent before these powers of direction are used, and an Amendment to this effect will be further considered. The directions must relate to the ship or its cargo; otherwise they may be unlimited in scope, but subsection (3) of the new clause gives examples of actions which may be required.
Under subsections (4) and (5) of the new clause the Secretary of State may himself, if he thinks it impracticable to ensure that oil pollution, or the risk of it, will be prevented or reduced by the giving of directions, take any action for that purpose. Again, examples of such actions are given, including actions which would not appropriately be the subject of directions.
At this point I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the powers given by subsections (1) to (5) operate only when the threat is one of oil pollution. There could be other threats for which similar powers would be desirable—for example, threats of damage by explosion or the escape of other dangerous cargoes. However, powers for such purposes could not reasonably be brought within the ambit of the present Bill, and the Government concluded that it was so urgent to provide against the danger of oil pollution that it was better to seek limited powers now than to await an opportunity for more general legislation later.
Failure to comply with directions under subsection (6) of the new clause is punishable in the same way as is a breach of Section 1 or 3 of the 1955 Act; that is, by a fine within a maximum of £50,000 on summary conviction, or by a fine without limit on indictment. It is appropriate that the penalties should be similar, for a discharge of oil as a result of wilful refusal to obey a direction is essentially the same as a deliberate discharge. Moreover, there could be the same need for quick proceedings before a magistrate, before the master or salvor of a ship left our jurisdiction. A defence is provided by subsection (7) for an accused who can prove that he used all due diligence to ensure compliance with
52
the direction. It has since been suggested that the phrase "all due diligence" is not altogether apt, and before the next stage I shall be considering an alternative form of drafting.
Suggestions have also since been made for two further defences under subsection (7). The first is that the action required should be what is practicable without causing risk to human life. This is a reasonable point and we will consider introducing an Amendment to give effect to it. The second suggestion is that it should be a defence to show that compliance with a direction was not reasonable in all the circumstances. I understand that this is intended to cover the situation where, for instance, a change in weather conditions has occurred after the direction was made. I can foresee some difficulties in regard to this point, but we will consider it.
Subsection (8) provides a penalty for wilful obstruction of a person seeking to carry out a direction, and subsection (9) confines the effect of the new clause to ships that are within United Kingdom jurisdiction. Subsection (11) makes it clear that the clause does not affect our rights under the Convention. Subsection (10) exempts naval and other Government ships from the application of the clause, which is obviously inappropriate to them. It has since been proposed that foreign Government ships and warships should be excluded, as in Article I of the Convention, and on Report I will put down an Amendment for that purpose. Subsection (12) introduces the Schedule, about which I shall have more to say in a moment, and subsection (13) gives certain definitions.
Perhaps I may now say a word about the Schedule, the subject of Amendment No. 3. The Schedule provides an important safeguard for the owners of the ship and the cargo, and for any other persons who may suffer damage as a result of action taken under the new clause. It is not intended that there should be any limit on the Government's powers or that any further defence should be given to a person disobeying directions, apart from that in subsection (7), as further amended if we find it necessary. However, in order to keep the situation in territorial waters in line with what applies on the high seas under the 1969 Convention, paragraph (1) of the Schedule provides

53
that if any person can show that he has incurred expense or suffered damage as a result of directions given or action taken by the Secretary of State, he shall be entitled to compensation if he can show that the action was not reasonably necessary to avoid oil pollution damage or was not proportionate to the actual or the threatened damage. Paragraph 1(2) sets out the matters which are to be taken into account by the court in considering whether measures are proportionate. These follow Article V.3 of the 1969 Convention. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule deals with technical questions relating to the giving and serving of directions.
Paragraph 3 of the Schedule is important. It provides that action taken in pursuance of a direction, or action taken by the Secretary of State himself, in respect of a ship in the custody of the Admiralty Marshal does not constitute contempt of court, and it relieves the Admiralty Marshal of any liability in civil proceedings for failure to carry out his duty to ensure the custody of the ship. This provision is necessary to protect the position both of the Secretary of State and of the Admiralty Marshal when directions are given or action is taken as regards a ship under arrest in civil proceedings in rem. A conflict of interest can easily occur in such a case, when the avoidance of pollution may make it desirable to move a ship away from our shores.
Finally, I turn to the Title, the subject of Amendment No. 4, which is to be found on the final page of the printed Marshalled List. The new clause and the new Schedule go beyond the present Long Title of the Bill, which relates to the Amendment of the 1955, 1963 and 1964 Acts and implements the 1969 Convention. They are still concerned with oil pollution but they make provisions of a kind which are not in the present legislation and so the additional wording proposed is desirable.
The whole new clause, the new Schedule and the new Title give the Government extensive powers beyond the mere ratification of the Convention, but we believe they are needed. We hope it will rarely be necessary to use them and that we shall be able in most cases, as we were in the case of the "Pacific Glory" incident, to obtain the willing co-
54
operation of all the interests involved in ensuring that a casualty is handled in a way which will minimise any threat of pollution to our coasts. Indeed, I would emphasise that although the clause does not embody a requirement to consult, corresponding to Article III of the Convention, it is of course the Government's firm intention to proceed by means of consultation in any such future disaster, both with the owners of the ship and its cargo, with any salvors involved and with anybody else who can help. I say this not only from respect to the legitimate interests of those directly concerned but also because there may be expert knowledge not available in the Government of which we shall want to take advantage. But, as I said on Second Reading, we may not always be able to rely on co-operation, and I believe we must have the power in reserve to protect our reasonable interests from damage or from the threat of damage. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: I may not have heard the noble Lord aright, but did he by any chance say that this clause has been drafted in full consultation with the underwriters? Because some quite extraordinary actions can take place under it which could seriously prejudice the interests of the underwriters of any damaged ship. I should like to draw his attention to paragraph 1(1)(b) of the Schedule. It seems to me that this sentence might well have been drafted for the benefit of the members of the Admiralty Bar in future years. I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand, and I am sure the courts will have a splendid time arguing exactly what it means. I wondered whether, before the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord would consider drafting it a little more closely.
LORD SANDFORD: There have been consultations, but during my remarks I said that they have not been as thorough and deliberate as we should wish; and if the noble Lord or any of his friends can give us the benefit of their counsel between this stage and the next we shall be grateful to them.
LORD KENNET: I think the noble Lord's question must have been addressed to the words "proportionately less". Is "proportionately less" less

55
than "less" or more than "less"? This new clause is indeed a large one to introduce at Committee stage, but I think the Committee must welcome it because it is a response to a new situation. In a way, when reading it I had the impression that it was rather shocking that all these things were not already possible to the Government. It is like waking up one morning and finding that there is not a law against murdering your aunt, but of course you do not find that out until somebody murders his aunt. That is what happened in the "Pacific Glory" case: gaps showed up, and gaps are being plugged, and in my view rightly, by the Government in this new clause. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord say that the Committee ought to accept it although it goes beyond the Convention. I think it is right to go beyond the Convention in this case, and, as I was arguing just now, it would be right to go beyond the Convention in other cases on the other Bill.
The noble Lord said that he had been pressed to add the word "imminent" to the qualification in a situation which would entitle the Secretary of State to take these actions—that the probable pollution had to be not only large scale (or whatever the wording was) but also "imminent". I would urge the noble Lord to think carefully before agreeing to include the word "imminent", because one could lose a lot of time considering a submission by an owner or a salvor that although there might be danger of something terrible happening there was in fact no danger of its happening for perhaps three days; and would the Government kindly wait while it became more imminent and while the time for doing the right thing decreased? I will not go so far as to say that I hope he will not add the word "imminent", but I hope he will look carefully at it before adding it.
The noble Lord said that the Government intended to take corresponding powers to deal with the risk of pollution from causes other than oil and to deal with the risk of explosion. It is open to question whether he should not have taken the powers immediately in this new clause. The new clause itself goes outside the Bill as drafted: so much is clear about it from the fact that the Government
56
have already had to amend the Long Title. Once one starts amending Long Titles it seems to me one might as well finish the job in one. The Government are not doing that, and I hope they will be able to tell us when we can expect legislation to finish the job and take corresponding powers to deal with other dangers. I do hope it can be in this Session. There seems to me no justification for leaving all the other dangers of chemical pollution and chemical explosion uncovered while dealing very properly with oil pollution.
May I turn to two particular points which seem to me open to question in the drafting of the new clause? Subsection (6) says that if the Secretary of State tells somebody to do something and he fails to comply with his direction, the person can be fined £50,000. But under subsection (8) if the Secretary of State then takes action himself and the other person obstructs him in carrying out these operations directly, that other person can only be fined £100. At first sight that seems to be reasonable: if I refuse to do what the Secretary of State tells me, I am fined £50,000 and then, if he does it for me I am fined only the small amount of £100. One can see the Government's point: that there is no point in fining me another £50,000.
But supposing I fail to do what the Secretary of State tells me, and supposing I am able to sustain the defence under subsection (7), that I have used
"all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction",
but have nevertheless failed to comply, I cannot be fined £50,000. The Secretary of State comes along and does it himself; I obstruct him, and I can be fined only £100. So it seems to me that a fiddly company could get off the hook rather easily by appearing to try to comply, to establish the "all due diligence" defence, but obstructing the Navy when it comes along. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at that.
Lastly, can the noble Lord tell us quite clearly about subsection (9), which says that the Secretary of State cannot give directions or take action in respect of non-British registered ships outside territorial waters. It is specifically stated that he cannot do anything about non-British ships outside the three-mile limit, even though it looks as though they are going

57
to pollute within the three-mile limit. Have the Government powers to do something about this in other legislation; and, if so, which? If they have not, how do they propose to enforce the admirable system of traffic control in the Channel, outside the three-mile limit which they have recently proposed?
5.4 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this late Amendment and for his agreement that it was nevertheless desirable to try to incorporate these provisions in the Bill at this late stage, and for his welcome for the fact that we have gone beyond the Convention. In going beyond the Convention, we are now setting an example to other countries, and the kind of legislation we are enacting here will be examined by them to see whether there are lessons to learn from it. It is therefore especially important that we proceed, though with haste, with the greatest possible care; and for this reason the observations of your Lordships are particularly welcome. I fully take the point which the noble Lord made about the word "imminent", and will consider it carefully between this stage and the next. As to the question of when we will take action on the wider issues of damage by explosion, or damage by the leakage and discharge of chemicals other than oil, I cannot give him an answer now, nor can I give him any assurances about that. But I will do the best I can before the next stage.
I am also grateful for the points that he has made in dealing with subsections (6), (7) and (8) and the apparently wide disparity between the fine that can be inflicted for an offence under subsection (6) and the very modest fine for an offence under subsection (8). I promise, as I think I have done already, to look at that before the next stage.
The noble Lord asked me about the powers that we already have to deal with ships threatening or causing pollution in territorial waters and outside territorial waters. I think this phrase in my original remarks answers the point. There are two cases not covered by the Convention, and the defence which this clause provides will not be available to Her Majesty's Government; namely, in an action against any ship in territorial or internal waters or any action against
58
United Kingdom ships on the high seas, I hope that makes it clear.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord has described the law as it now stands—that is, before this new clause is passed into law. My question related to the situation after this clause becomes law. The new clause will give the Government power to take action over all ships in territorial waters and British ships outside territorial waters. My question is what about non-British ships outside territorial waters after this new clause is passed? Will they be covered by other provisions; and, if so, which? And, if not, how do we get the compulsory traffic discipline in the Channel which we are proposing?
LORD SANDFORD: I think that traffic discipline is rather a different question. The whole purpose of the main Bill is to deal with ships of the category the noble Lord was mentioning. What the "Pacific Glory" incident showed was that we have no powers at present to deal with casualties, collisions and strandings of any ship inside our own territorial waters. The original Bill ratifying the Convention gives us the powers we need to deal with the other situation. If the noble Lord is not satisfied with that, perhaps we can have a word together and return to it at the next stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments of Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955]:
LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 2 is a minor consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
("6. In section 22(3) for the words "this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the provisions of this Act other than section 10".")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope that my explanation of the whole purpose of these three major Amendments has made Amendment No. 3 clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule,
"SCHEDULE
SHIPPING CASUALTIES
Right to recover in respect of unreasonable loss or damage
1.—(1) If any action duly taken by a person in pursuance of a direction given to him under the principal section, or any action taken under subsection (4) or (5) of the principal section—

(a) was not reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce oil pollution, or risk of oil pollution, or

(b) was such that the good it did or was likely to do was disproportionately less than the damage resulting from the action, or the risk of such damage,

a person incurring expense or suffering damage as a result of, or by himself taking, the action shall be entitled to recover compensation from the Secretary of State.
(2) In considering whether subparagraph (1)(b) above applies, account shall be taken of—

(a) the extent and probability of imminent damage if the action had not been taken,

(b) the likelihood of the action being effective, and

(c) the extent of the damage which has been caused by the action.

(3) Any reference in this paragraph to the taking of any action includes a reference to a compliance with a direction not to take some specified action.
(4) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and of the Court of Session shall include jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim arising under this paragraph.
Directions
2.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a company or other body is not one to whom section 412 or section 437 of the Companies Act 1948 (service of notices) applies so as to authorise the service of a direction on that body under either of those sections, he may give a direction under the principal section—

(a) to that body, as the owner of, or the person in possession of, a ship, by serving the direction on the master of the ship,

(b) to that body, as a salvor, by serving the direction on the person in charge of the salvage operations.

(2) For the purpose of giving or serving a direction under the principal section to or on any person on a ship, a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State shall have the right to go on board the ship.
(3) If a person wilfully obstructs any person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in connection with the giving or service of a direction under the principal section, the first-mentioned person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
Ship under arrest
3. It is hereby declared that any action taken as respects a ship in the custody of the Admiralty Marshal or as respects the cargo of such a ship, being action duly taken in pursuance of a direction given under the principal section, or being any action taken under subsection (4) or (5) of the principal section—

(a) does not constitute contempt of court, and

(b) where it deprives the Admiralty Marshal of custody, does not thereby make him liable in any civil proceedings.")—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 3, at end insert ("to make further provision for preventing pollution of the sea by oil; and for purposes connected therewith.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
5.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD W1NDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, before the Question is put, I wish to express some concern about the way in which the business of this House has been arranged. The Committee stage of this Bill was on the Order Paper for last Thursday for at least a week previously, and everyone concerned with the Bill made their arrangements accordingly. At half past four on Thursday afternoon we were discussing the first Amendment only when we were informed that the usual channels had agreed that the Committee stage should be adjourned at six o'clock until to-day.
Channels are, I think, means of communication, and whoever the "usual channels" may communicate with—presumably with one another—no attempt was made to communicate with persons

61
interested in the Bill, all of whom had made their arrangements for the Committee stage last Thursday. There are 59 Amendments down to the Bill, 27 of them, I regret to say, in my name, and this short notice rearrangement was extremely inconvenient.
May I also point out that, owing to the postal strike, anybody who did not happen to be here at the right moment on Thursday, or does not happen to be here to-day, could have no possible way of knowing that this business was to be taken to-day. Finally, I should like to say that if this rearrangement was absolutely unavoidable I should have thought that the least that could have been done would be to give us the first place on the Order Paper to-day.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Baroness in this matter. What happened was that on Thursday last there were representations from noble Lords opposite that the Committee stage should be curtailed. The discussions were conducted through the usual channels, and it was decided that the Committee stage should be adjourned at six o'clock. I am more than sorry that the noble Baroness was not aware of this or was not consulted previously.
With regard to the position of business to-day, I must admit that I was in some difficulty. As the noble Baroness has mentioned, owing to the postal strike it is difficult to communicate with people. I thought that if I put this Bill down for first business to-day (which is the normal practice) a number of people who were not aware of the arrangement on Thursday and had an interest in later Amendments, would not know of the arrangement for to-day. I also thought that noble Lords who were involved in the business which was already down for to-day might equally not know about the arrangement. Therefore, I thought that in the long run it was better to leave the existing business as it was and to insert the new business at the end. This would give more time for noble Lords to acquaint themselves with the arrangements.
We have done our best to keep your Lordships informed. The Press have been helpful about printing the information as to forthcoming business in your Lordships' House, and the B.B.C. have
62
also helped by mentioning forthcoming business at the end of "To-day in Parliament "and" Yesterday in Parliament". But I am afraid that in the circumstances there will be occasions when inconvenience will be caused to your Lordships. I am sorry that this should be so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think it is only fair to say that if any blame is to be taken here I ought to take a share of it. I was part of the "usual channels". But I am bound to say also that the noble Earl faced a problem which I myself faced on occasions; namely, of satisfying everyone, everybody having a different idea as to what should be the solution. I thought the noble Earl was being fair when he said that he would announce the arrangement at the Thursday Silting, the point being that those who were interested in this matter would be present in the House and, if there were any objection, it could be voiced at the time the announcement was made. I can only say that I know that the noble Earl was anxious to help and to serve the House as a whole. I realise that it is not always possible to achieve that objective.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Restriction of cultivation of cannabis plant]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FOOT: I shall not detain the Committee for long, not because I think this question unimportant, but because I think it can be dealt with quite quickly. Your Lordships will see that the object of this Amendment is to eliminate Clause 6 altogether. Clause 6 creates new law. It provides that:
"it shall not be lawful for a person to cultivate any plant of the genus Cannabis".
My objections to this clause are three in number: first, that I believe it involves a considerable danger of the wrongful conviction of innocent people; secondly, that I think it is unnecessary; and thirdly, that it raises what I might describe as a theological issue. I am rather

63
sorry that nobody is sitting on the Bench of Bishops to help me out in this matter, because cannabis and cannabis resin are not, as I understand, artificial man-made things: they are in fact of natural growth and grow in many parts of the world.
I presume that the earliest record and reference to cannabis that we have is in the first chapter of Genesis, although, of course, it is not mentioned specifically by name. Your Lordships will remember that it was on the third day of Creation that God Almighty decided to create flora. As your Lordships may remember, the circumstances are recorded in Verses 11 and 12 of the first chapter of Genesis. Verse 11 reads:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so".
Verse 12 reads:
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind"—
and the words to which I direct your Lordships' particular attention are the concluding words:
"and God saw that it was good."
So far as cannabis is concerned, obviously that is an opinion which is not shared by Her Majesty's Government, nor, I may say, by Her Majesty's Opposition, because this clause appeared in their Bill which the present Government took over.
This is not perhaps the first time that the Tory and Labour Parties have found themselves in what, quite literally, might be described on this occasion as "an unholy alliance". The Government clearly do not share the view that this was a good thing, because they have provided in the Bill that if anybody seeks to carry on the good work he will be liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment—that is, unless the person concerned can, under, I think, Clause 28, show that he did not know what he was doing. I can only infer from that that the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the Almighty did not know what he was doing in the first place. I have not the assistance of the Bishops, and I have not even the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, to-day, who could have helped us on this matter.
64
A NOBLE LORD: You have a reverend Lord behind you.
LORD FOOT: The only reason I did not refer to my noble friend was that I thought any assistance I could get from the opposite side would be of greater help than assistance coming from my own Benches.
May I turn to the more mundane objections to this clause? They are these. I said that I think there is a serious danger here of innocent people being wrongfully convicted, because I presume—I am not an authority on this matter—that it is perfectly possible to cultivate cannabis inadvertently, even in this country, without knowing what it is or what you are doing. Therefore there is always the risk that somebody may engage in the cultivation of cannabis and commit an offence, without being aware that he is committing an offence at all. Clause 28 provides that with regard to various offences under this Bill, and in particular this offence of cultivating cannabis, proof of lack of knowledge shall, in certain circumstances, be a defence in proceedings brought under the Bill. I am not at all satisfied, in this context, that that clause does in fact provide protection against the innocent cultivator of cannabis. I say that because the way in which Clause 28 is framed shifts the onus of proof to the accused person, so that it is up to him to prove positively that he did not know what he was doing, and it requires him to prove a negative.
May I quote the relevant words of the relevant clause? They are these:
"Where in any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is necessary, if the accused is to be convicted of the offence charged, for the prosecution to prove that some substance or product involved in the alleged offence was the controlled drug which the prosecution alleges it to have been, and it is proved that the substance or product in question was that controlled drug, the accused "—
now I leave out some words which are irrelevant,
"(b) shall be acquitted thereof—
(i) if he proves"—
and if I may introduce the word there "affirmatively", because that is what it means,
"that he neither believed nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that the substance or product in question was a controlled drug;".
So if somebody inadvertently grows cannabis in his garden—and I gather that

65
this is something that does in fact go on, although the quality of the cannabis (and this may be some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill) for drug-taking purposes is very poor indeed—and is found to be doing so and is prosecuted, he then has to prove the negative: that he did not know that this was cannabis. It will be immediately apparent to your Lordships that in some circumstances it may be very difficult for a person, however innocent, to prove positively to the satisfaction of a court that he did not know that what he was cultivating was cannabis.
The second branch of my more mundane argument is that this clause is really unnecessary. I say that because if your Lordships will look at Clause 4(1) and (2) you will see that that deals with production. It provides that:
"Subject to any regulations under section 7 of this Act for the time being in force,"—
those are the regulations giving power to the Secretary of State to issue licences—
"it shall not be lawful for a person—
"(a) to produce a controlled drug;".
Then, if you go on to subsection (2)(b), you will see that it is an offence for a person to produce a controlled drug, or
"to be concerned in the production of such a drug in contravention of that subsection by another."
Why is it necessary to introduce a special clause making it an offence to cultivate cannabis? Surely if you cultivate cannabis you are automatically producing it. I do not see the necessity for this provision.
The other curious contradiction, or anomaly, is that if you are going to make it an offence, punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, to cultivate cannabis, why is there no corresponding prohibition against the production of the plants from which you get the hard drug, heroin? Why is there no specific prohibition in this Bill against growing the poppy, from which you get morphine and from which you get the heroin derivative? Those are the reasons why I suggest that this clause is both unnecessary and, in one sense, if you are going to have it at all, does not go far enough.
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I find it difficult to understand what prompted the noble Lord to put this Amendment on
66
the Order Paper, because leaving out Clause 6 would enable the unstable, and those with criminal tendencies, to cultivate cannabis. On the debate that we had on the first Amendment, I thought the Committee had made it clear that they did not favour Amendments which took a lenient view of the consumption of cannabis and the traffic in cannabis. Therefore, I feel that it is not necessary for me to emphasise the danger of this Amendment. I think that the noble Lord, on thinking it over, felt a little remorse and tried to explain that the reason why he had put it on the Order Paper was to protect the poor gardener who, thinking he was planting sweet peas, discovered cannabis growing in the garden. I do not think the noble Lord should worry. He should know the legal profession, and I am sure that we have enough confidence in our lawyers and courts to know that if a simple individual went to them and said, "This come up when I thought a different plant was coming up", they would recognise that it was not a deliberate piece of cultivation on his part which had resulted in the cultivation of this evil drug.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I quote from a report made last week by the International Narcotics Control Board. This report has been published since we last met. Having heard this report—and It think we should put it on record—I think that all the Amendments on the Order Paper should fall, including, with all respect, the twenty-seven Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Wootton.
The Times reported this review, under the heading, "Cannabis habit said to be nearly an epidemic", on February 6, and of course the report was from Geneva:
"Widespread indulgence in cannabis has now reached almost epidemic proportions and is still increasing sharply, particularly among the younger generation, according to the International Narcotics Control Board.
"Its latest annual review says that, while progression from cannabis to heroin may not be inevitable, there is evidence that many heroin consumers have begun with cannabis.
"While the existence of a process of transition from cannabis to other psychotropic substances, including LSD, had also been noted, the board says that for many people the ultimate progression is still to heroin.
"The review emphasizes that the public debate on cannabis is clouded by misunderstanding because of the 'wide variation in

67
quality of the material consumed as cannabis by different people in different places'.
"Because of conflicting views about the degree of danger attached to the consumption of cannabis there is a dubiety of public opinion 'which fails to provide a corrective to heedless attitudes".
"These, the board says, arise more readily where cannabis is relatively novel than in countries such as India, which 'are alert to its dangers to the individual and to society '.
"The board expresses particular concern over the drug situation in Asia. It reports indications that opium, morphine and heroin traffickers are turning their attention to south-east Asia.
"Abuse of drugs is now geographically more widespread, includes much larger numbers, and has invaded all levels of society in the countries affected."
The International Narcotics Control Board did not introduce any amendments of the character which we see on the Marshalled List to-night; their review indicates that they would be opposed root and branch to every one of them. It is quite clear that there is a tendency in some parts to feel that the youth of the world must have its way, and that if it wants new experiences then the older generation should not be bigoted and conservative; that young people must be allowed either to cultivate cannabis or to try it out in their rooms. The International Narcotics Control Board have made it quite clear that this is a danger, particularly in those countries which are not accustomed to the evil effects—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble Baroness—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am just finishing—and Britain is one of these countries. Therefore I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment and to turn your faces with me against any effort to take a lenient view of the traffic in cannabis.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I should like to call the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that there is no Amendment on the Marshalled List which would make it legal to try cannabis in one's room.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I can only say that we are discussing an Amendment which will make it legal for a man to grow cannabis in his back garden. I presume that he does not leave it in his
68
back garden; he takes it into his room and tries it out.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Will the noble Baroness forgive me for correcting her? The Amendment is not to make it legal: it is to keep it legal.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to support this Amendment, but almost entirely on the grounds that this clause, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned, is completely unnecessary. There was one point which he did not make: that, according to the interpretation clause, to produce a controlled drug includes the production "by manufacture, cultivation or any other method". It therefore seems quite clear that cultivation of any controlled drug is already illegal under Clause 4. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I do not understand why cannabis is singled out for mention here when the garden poppy, for instance, contains 25 per cent. morphine. I cannot understand why cannabis in particular should be prohibited.
LORD HAWKE: If this clause goes through, I hope that the Government will tell the people a little more about what cannabis is, because there is no doubt that the vast majority of the population do not have a clue what the plant is or what it looks like. I heard of a case the other day when two wicked young people—possibly Young Liberals, for all I know—planted some cannabis and persuaded their old family nanny to keep it weeded and watered. Fortunately, she forgot to water it and eventually the plant perished; but she certainly never knew what it was, and other innocent people may fall into the same trap.
5.37 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, let me say that the plant cannabis is not a controlled drug. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, whose remarks bear on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I would say that cannabis can be cultivated without being productive of resin. The resin comes from the flowering tops of female plants and the plant is not in itself a controlled drug. The reason why this clause is necessary is that we have an international obligation under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic

69
Drugs of 1961, to which this country is a signatory, to prohibit the cultivation of the cannabis plant. For that reason this clause is included in the Bill. It is not a new prohibition: this is already the position under existing legislation. Under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, exactly the same prohibition applies. But, leaving aside the international obligation, it seems sensible that, so long as the supply and production of cannabis are prohibited, the possibility of evading the prohibition by private cultivation should also be prohibited. The Bill prohibits outright the production of controlled drugs, but it seems safest where the source is a plant—as is the case here—which has no legitimate purpose, to go further and to forbid its cultivation.
There have been very few prosecutions for this offence under the existing law; contravention has been extremely rare. The climatic factors make it most improbable that there will be intensive cultivation of cannabis under natural conditions in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, underground publications have shown that there is some interest in using artificial sunlight and other methods for indoor cultivation of cannabis, and it therefore seems expedient to the Government to maintain this restriction. In closing, I should say to the Committee that the defences in Clause 28 apply to the clause under discussion. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with this Amendment and will be willing to withdraw it.
LORD FOOT: I shall not carry this Amendment to a Division, and in a moment I shall ask leave to withdraw it, but I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. He spoke of the Convention of 1961, under which we have an international obligation to prohibit the cultivation of the plant cannabis. I should like the noble Lord to tell us, not necessarily now, whether that Convention extends to the cultivation of the plants from which one gets morphine and morphine derivatives. I should like him to explain that, and if the answer is that it does extend to those plants, why is it not necessary to have a specific provision, similar to this one, covering the morphine plants?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to take note of that point and deal with it on Report. It is unwise to speak without
70
checking, but the difference probably lies in the fact that the cannabis plant is not a drug. It may or may not produce a drug in certain conditions. But this is an extremely technical matter, and I should prefer to check up and give the noble Lord an informed reply at a later stage.
LORD KILBRACKEN: When the noble Lord is taking up that point, will he also look at the definition of "produce" in Clause 37? That clause states:
"'produce', where the reference is to producing a controlled drug, means producing it by manufacture, cultivation or any other method".
If he is taking the line that the cannabis plant is not a controlled drug, how is it possible to cultivate a controlled drug? I do not see how it can be.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Let me add that question to the one I shall be answering from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on Report.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Authorisation of activities otherwise unlawful under foregoing provisions]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert ("and (c) that it is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession if that drug has been lawfully prescribed for him.").
The noble Lord said: Under subsection (1) of this clause the Secretary of State is permitted to make certain regulations; under subsection (3) he is required to make certain regulations, and one of these is to secure that it is not unlawful for a doctor to prescribe a controlled drug. However, there is no corresponding provision that the Secretary of State shall make regulations permitting a person to whom that drug has been prescribed to have it in his possession. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to say that regulations may be made—as of course they may—under subsection (1) enabling an addict to have such a drug in his possession; but, if so, I suggest to the Committee that that is not enough, and that if there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to permit controlled drugs to be prescribed then there should

71
also be an obligation to permit the addict to have them, or to have it, in his possession. That is the intention of my Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I very much appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. But I am not going to say that regulations may be made under subsection (1)(b) but that in fact they will be made, to satisfy, I hope, the noble Lord's point. As he rightly pointed out, the Secretary of State may by regulations
"make such other provision as he thinks fit for the purpose of making it lawful for persons to do things which under any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do";
and I can give the noble Lord the categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will be making regulations under this provision to ensure that it will be quite lawful for persons to have in their possession controlled drugs which have been properly prescribed for them. This follows the present Regulation 9(2)(b) of the Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations 1964, which provide for that exactly.
There are other cases where regulations are required to make sure that people are not committing offences when they obviously should be in possession of drugs. Another example which I might give the noble Lord is that of a police constable acting in the course of his duty. That situation, too, will be covered by regulations. The reason why the medical profession is dealt with differently in Clause 7(3) is simply that this is a kind of charter for the medical profession, whose members are vitally involved in the whole of this Bill, and it was thought wise to have their rights specifically safeguarded in subsection (3). But were we to go further and put other categories of persons into the Bill, it would be difficult to know where to draw the line. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree that the patients are better covered under regulations, as they are at the present moment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I realised that the Secretary of State would be able to make such regulations, and I felt perfectly certain that he would, but I
72
felt that he should be under the same obligations to the patient as he is to the doctor. However, in view of the categorical assurance that the noble Lord has given me that these regulations will be made, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Occupiers etc. of premises to be punishable for permitting certain activities to take place there]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: In Clause 8 are set out offences which are committed if the person who is the occupier or is concerned in the management of the premises allows certain activities to take place. Among these we find, in paragraph (d):
"smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium".
The other offences are all offences of a much more serious kind, such as,
"producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug",
or,
"supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug",
or
"preparing opium for smoking".
I am absolutely in agreement that it ought to be an offence to allow any of these things to take place on one's premises, but I cannot see why paragraph (d) should be included in this category.
The first point that I want to make—it is really a minor one, but it has to be stated—is that smoking cannabis or cannabis resin, or indeed prepared opium, is not an offence under this Bill. The offence, of course, lies in possession. It is quite possible, I think, although about this I am not sure, to smoke a reefer which is not in your possession, which has been handed to you; but whether that is so or not, it is certainly true to say that smoking cannabis is not an offence. Possession is the offence; but here the owner of premises is being made liable for an offence of allowing something to take place which is not itself an offence.
But the second point, which is of much more substance is that I cannot begin to understand why, of all the drugs set out in Classes A, B and C in the Schedule, it should be an offence to permit the taking only of this one on premises that you control. We have had eloquent words from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Gifford, and from others, about the dangers or the lack of dangers in smoking cannabis, and of course it is a controversial subject; but whether it is completely harmless or less harmful than many noble Lords tried to indicate at earlier stages of the Bill, there surely cannot be any doubt whatsoever that cannabis is far less harmful than, and in a completely different category from, many of those in Class A, of which heroin, morphine and LSD are the best known to the general public. Therefore, why is it necessary to include smoking cannabis under this subsection?
A really absurd situation can arise here. If I give a party in my house and I become aware, in the course of the evening, that two or three of my guests are smoking cannabis—which can happen only too easily, and many of your Lordships may have had the experience—and if I turn a blind eye to it, I become liable to an offence punishable on indictment by 14 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. But if I am living in an establishment where there are three or four heroin addicts and night after night, or day after day, or whenever they use the stuff, they are injecting themselves by means of hypodermic syringes, and if I am fully aware of this fact and do not do anything about it, I do not commit an offence.
This seems to me to be absolutely nonsensical. It must be more serious to allow people to take Class A drugs on my premises, to permit them "knowingly' to do so, than to allow two or three kids at a party to smoke a reefer—or to turn a blind eye to it. So far as I am concerned, paragraph (c) is also unnecessary because to prepare opium for smoking involves "supplying a controlled drug" and so on, and is thus illegal under the provisions of an earlier clause. I cannot see any reason for picking out cannabis. Some noble Lords have quite hysterical feelings about cannabis; some speak as though cannabis were more serious than
74
Class A drugs. I am not speaking in favour of legalising cannabis; I am saying that it is not as serious as those drugs which I am allowed to encourage people to use on my premises without committing an offence. Therefore, I propose that paragraph (d) be deleted. I beg to move.
5.52 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the liability imposed under Clause 8 on the occupiers and persons concerned in the management of premises who "knowingly permit" or suffer those premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium. Here again I must say to the noble Lord that this is already the law. These provisions are taken from Sections 5 and 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965.
The noble Lord explained that he tabled this Amendment because he sees no reason to single out these drugs when it is not an offence to allow premises to be used for taking more dangerous drugs such as heroin. The reason is that, so far as is known, only cannabis, cannabis resin and prepared opium are smoked; other drugs commonly used are taken either orally or by intravenous injection. In the case of prepared opium, the liability on the occupiers and managers of premises used for smoking goes back to 1920, when legislation was enacted enabling the United Kingdom Government to give effect to treaty obligations which were entered into under The Hague Convention of 1912. At that time, the problem of opium dens, particularly in the docks, was much more acute than it is now. Bat places used for the purpose of smoking prepared opium are still discovered here from time to time.
As I have said, the smoking of cannabis or cannabis resin is already an offence. It was originally introduced in the 1964 Act and carried forward into the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The party at which cannabis smoking takes place is a common occurrence, and the police are much concerned that some such parties are promoted for profit and that these parties may be in private premises or in public premises. For this reason it is desirable to retain the provisions of the present law as regards the smoking of cannabis or opium. I think noble

75
Lords will accept that the main distinction between taking drugs orally or intravenously and smoking them is that if drugs are smoked it is reasonable to suppose that others, people who are in charge of the premises—the owners, occupiers or managers—are likely on balance to know what is going on because of the distinctive smell. This may not be the case with drugs taken in other ways. For that reason it is not possible to accept this Amendment.
LORD FOOT: I find great difficulty in following the logic of the Minister's argument in reply to this Amendment. This clause of the Bill is concerned with what moral guilt and legal guilt ought to be attached to a person who allows his premises knowingly to be used for certain activities. Surely, as a matter of moral guilt it is a very much more serious matter for somebody knowingly to allow his premises to be used for the injection of heroin than it is for him to allow his premises to be used simply for smoking cannabis. Surely there is no argument or dispute about that. The Minister does not seem to me to answer in any way the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
All right! if you are going to include smoking cannabis, then why not make it an offence to allow premises to be used for something very much more serious? The Minister cannot get out of this by saying that it is much easier to detect it when people are smoking cannabis than when taking heroin or injecting amphetamines into their systems. But the clause says "knowingly". A man cannot be convicted unless he knows about it, and unless the prosecution in any particular case can satisfy the court that the person concerned knew about it. Surely the person who allows his premises to be used for the purpose of heroin taking should be certainly as open to prosecution as the person who allows his premises to be used for the purpose of smoking cannabis.
LORD JANNER: I wish merely to ask one question with regard to the answer given by the Minister. I am strongly in favour of preventing the smoking of cannabis or the use of any other dangerous drugs; but I understand that the law as
76
it stands at the moment prevents anyone from participating in what is now to be included in the Bill. If that is so, may I make a suggestion? It is that the Dangerous Drugs Acts be consolidated and that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, be included in that consolidation. That would avoid repetitions of this nature. I cannot see why it is essential in a fresh Act to include something which is already the law and which in any circumstances would prevail whether or not these words were in the Bill.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Bill will take the place of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Therefore, in some clauses we are carrying over parts of existing legislation and in others changing it. There are some major differences in the present Bill. There is the distinction between possession and trafficking and the classification of drugs into categories A and B—all this is quite new. But in many places, aspects of the existing law, including the one to which we are referring, are carried over.
There is a practical point at issue here. I have explained the origin. The introduction into the law of offences of this nature resulted from opium smoking; and the law goes back to 1920. The smoking of cannabis is easily identifiable because of the smell. Parties take place, promoted for profit, where cannabis is smoked and the police have told us in the past (they already prosecute under this clause) that this is an important part of the law. For these reasons it is not realistic to expect the Government to say that they are going to remove the existing liability.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, said in her remarks on the first Amendment, this Amendment, together with many others on the Marshalled List, all form part of the same argument. It does not matter particularly to the movers what is the effect of some of these Amendments; when we get on to the penalties later we shall see some curious consequences of the arguments which have been put forward. But it is all part of a campaign to liberalise our attitude towards cannabis; and, as I explained in the long debate on Amendment No. 1, that is not a position that the Government can accept. For those reasons I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I must point out to the Minister that although it may not be part of the Government's policy to take a liberal attitude towards cannabis, in this Bill they are halving the maximum penalty for possession.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not taken any part in these discussions and I cannot pretend to be an expert on drugs. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will not press his Amendment to a Division. As I understand it, the Government's argument on this particular Amendment, and on other matters connected with cannabis, is not that cannabis is such a very bad thing in itself but that it leads in a great number of cases to people proceeding from cannabis to the use of more serious drugs. If that is the case, I think the Government are bound to maintain their position. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, spoke about heroin. If I may say so to someone so able as himself, I think that he is guilty of what we used to call a non sequitur. The fact that heroin ought to have been included in this Bill and has not been, or should have been included in this Amendment and has not been, has no bearing on whether we put in cannabis. Heroin is quite a different subject, and to say that because heroin is not mentioned here we ought not to mention cannabis does not make sense to me.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I listened with attention and respect to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, but I am bound to say that I cannot agree with him on one point. The point has been made by my noble friend Lord Gifford—and I think it was also indicated by the noble Baroness—that cannabis is likely to lead on to the use of other drugs. This has been suggested from time to time, and by noble Lords who perhaps have not studied the history of cannabis as closely as others. I believe I am right in saying that the general belief among those who have specialised in the subject is that there is no real evidence to that effect. It may well be found that many who take heroin have previously taken cannabis, but to state that one is responsible for the other is, I suggest, a post hoc, propter hoc argument. It may also be found that the great majority of those who take heroin, or morphia, or
78
LSD, have previously smoked cigarettes or consumed whisky. I do not think that one may infer anything from that. Also, of course, it is well known in the medical profession that cannabis is not habit forming; is not addictive. Therefore I support those of my noble friends who have said that cannabis is probably the least serious of all the drugs; in the Schedule.
I must say that I was not greatly convinced by the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He said that one reason for insisting on this provision was that it was already in the existing legislation. To that I would only say that the fact that it is in existing legislation does not mean that we cannot try to improve the situation by this Bill. Naturally I would not wish to divide the Committee on this issue, but such a contradiction is involved that I would even prefer that the paragraph made the taking of controlled drugs an offence. I could understand, that, and it would be logical. But I feel that to single out cannabis in this way is completely unjustifiable and therefore, although I shall not divide the Committee, I do not wish to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8; agreed to.
Clause 9 [Prohibition of certain activities etc. relating to opium]:
6.6 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Clause 9 relates entirely to the
"prohibition of certain activities et cetera relating to opium."
Once again I am at a loss to understand why opium has been singled out for attention and given an entire clause to itself. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred recently to the fact that some years ago all one's thoughts about drug-taking turned at once to opium dens at the quayside. But that is all completely a thing of the past. We never hear of anyone taking opium nowadays. I am informed that it is seldom taken and I believe that opium dens are practically non-existent. Even if opium is taken,

79
I ask again: why is it necessary to have a clause in the Bill which specifically prohibits doing certain things with opium which are prohibited nowhere else in the Bill?
A special offence is created in Clause 9(1)(a):
"to smoke or otherwise use prepared opium."
It is nowhere stated in the Bill that it is an offence to smoke or otherwise use cannabis resin, about which all your Lordships have an obsession. It nowhere says that it is an offence to take morphia or heroin. Yet opium has been specified in this particular case. It seems to me almost an anachronism to include it. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is proposing the deletion of paragraph (c). I hope that he will express eloquent reasons for doing so. I am of the opinion that the entire clause is unnecessary, but, above all, paragraph (a), and I move this Amendment which would delete it.
LORD JANNER: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will not press his Amendment to a Division. I do not agree with him when he says that opium is not being smoked in some places much more frequently than any other drug which is used on those premises. In my mind there is no question at all that a considerable amount of opium is being smoked, and has been smoked for many years, at seaside places. I am not talking about seaside resorts, but shipping places. In prosecutions which have taken place it has been difficult to find the people who have actually participated in the smoking, because they have cleared off when the police arrived; but utensils have been found on the premises. I am not aware whether the discovery of utensils on premises is, in itself, grounds for a prosecution. Years ago there was a considerable amount of opium smoking in ports like Cardiff, but in many cases, although utensils were on the premises, the prosecution could not prove its case. I think it is important that this provision should be specifically put in the Bill, so that people will know that if utensils are found on their premises, that will be an offence. I do not know why other drugs have not been referred to, but I am sure that this drug should be referred to in the manner in which it is in the clause.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Special precautions against the smoking of opium are a long-standing feature of the law. The offence of smoking prepared opium was originally introduced in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 in order that the Government could give effect to their obligation, as a party to the International Opium Convention of 1912, to take measures for the gradual suppression of the manufacture of, trade in, and use of prepared opium. We are still under that obligation. Prepared opium is opium that is specifically prepared for smoking, and therefore the imposition of a ban on smoking at that time, when the opium den was quite a common feature, particularly in the docks, was a necessary and prudent step to take.
Since 1920, the law seems to have brought about a reduction in the incidence of opium smoking until it is comparatively rare for cases to come to the notice of the police. There seems, therefore, good reason to retain a law that has been demonstrably effective in the past. I understand that a small number of offences are committed every year in connection with opium; opium smoking is not unknown, and cases have recently come to light where opium has been smoked not only in the docks but in the West End of London. For these reasons, it seems a wise step to retain this provision. Therefore I must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I certainly do not intend to press my Amendment, in view of what the noble Lord has said: that it has been infrequently used. May I ask him one question? Why, of the dozens of drugs listed in the Schedule, is it made an offence to ingest prepared opium alone and no other drug on the list at all?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord is approaching this Bill as though he has a clean sheet of paper in front of him and can write offences down on the basis of what is known to-day. That is not so. There has been legislation in this field for fifty years. To answer his question one would have to go back to the Hague Convention of 1912.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: But surely my noble friend is quite right to call attention to the fact that when

81
legislation is carried forward without revision, we get a great many unnecessary things and illogicalities. I think my noble friend is calling attention to some important illogicalities which might be nut right when we have this Bill, which in substance is a consolidating Bill.
Loan ST. JUST: May I follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said and take a slightly more positive attitude on this position? Cannabis is going to be made illegal. Often this is a group experiment. I think that the same should be done for LSD and also for heroin, because these, too, can be a group experiment among the young.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am glad of the intervention of my noble friends. After what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, I should have thought it better if the Parliamentary draftsman had also started with a clean sheet of paper in front of him and begun from scratch, instead of producing a Bill clearly based on previous laws which are irrelevant and outdated. But I have no intention of pressing the Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 7, line 33, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not designed, rightly or wrongly, in any way to liberalise the Bill on drugs or to go soft on any particular drug. It is an Amendment concerned entirely with civil rights. I think it would be accepted by everyone that it is a dangerous thing to make something an offence which cannot morally be any kind of offence. In paragraph (c) we have such a situation. I have never smoked opium in my life, but I have an opium pipe. I should not be at all surprised if some noble Lords, particularly those who own historic mansions, with accumulations of belongings, also have opium pipes. We are now told by the Minister himself that opium smoking in this country is rare. I am certain that there are a hundred times as many opium pipes as there are people who smoke opium. This paragraph seems to me be taking a steam hammer to crack a nut and to be putting people
82
in unnecessary jeopardy. It is not as if this were a major problem which we have to combat. There are few cases of conviction because the police find opium on premises, and there must be far fewer convictions because the police find utensils. It is ridiculous that we should make it an offence for people to do something which they have done for a long time, perfectly honestly and without moral danger, in order to catch occasional odd cases. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment falls for consideration under the same category as the previous two Amendments we have been discussing. The effect would be to do away with the offence of possessing pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking of opium, or of any utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking. Again this is a provision of long-standing, going back to the 1920 legislation to which I have referred. The provision has proved effective in that opium smoking in this country is no longer widely practised. Nevertheless, I am advised that occasions do arise where the provision in question assists the enforcement of control.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation where somebody has in his possession an opium pipe. This point has been raised from time to time in connection with museums or private collections where opium pipes are held. But the thing to stress here, and to point out to museum curators and others, is that the offence under this provision rests in the words:
"possession … for use in connection with the smoking of opium or … used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking
In the case of museum curator or a private collector, the offence would not arise if the pipes were kept for purposes of exhibition only and there was no intention by the owner or the curator to use them for their original purposes. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his Amendment.
6.21 p.m.
LORD FOOT: I have listened to the explanation given by the noble Lord, but I am still uncertain whether these words

83
mean what he says they mean. He says that the words,
"should have in his possession any pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking of opium",
mean for use by that individual for the purpose of smoking opium. And when we come to the words,
"used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking",
he says they mean used by him. I very much doubt whether those words do necessarily mean that. I suggest that what they may mean is this: to have in his possession any pipes or other utensils such as can be used in connection with the smoking of opium. I do not wish to push the matter further than this, but perhaps between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord will consider whether those words can be improved so as to put the matter beyond doubt.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I will willingly do that, but without making any promises. The noble Lord has explained his point, and it is one that might usefully be looked at again by the draftsmen and by my, legal advisers. We can discuss it further on the Report stage.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I thank the noble Lord for that undertaking. It seems to me also that the words do not mean what he says they mean. I should be quite satisfied if we could be assured on the Report stage either that they do mean that, and cannot be construed otherwise, or that they can be changed so that there would be a burden of proof on the prosecution to show that these particular utensils were intended to be, or were, used for the smoking of opium. As I have said, it is totally a civil rights point that I am raising, and that would meet it. I will put down a similar Amendment on the Report stage so that we can discuss it again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to make regulations for preventing misuse of controlled drugs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD PLATT: Before we give our approval to Clause 10 in its entirety, I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to one or two points in it on which I should greatly appreciate an assurance from the noble Lord who speaks for the Government in this matter. To some extent any misgivings that I may have may be dispelled if the Committee pass Amendment No. 18. If I may refer to that Amendment for a moment, it would make it obligatory for the Secretary of State concerned, before making regulations, to consult such organisations as appear to be representative of the interests concerned and so forth. We have not yet reached that Amendment but, with your Lordships' permission, I wish to raise one or two items in this clause, which does give the Secretary of State very wide powers to make regulations about all kinds of things.
If these regulations follow the existing regulations in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 there could be certain anomalies that would need to be smoothed out. I will call attention to two of them. First of all, under Clause 10(2)(a) there is the question of safe custody of controlled drugs. I understand that considerable difficulties have arisen as to whether drugs kept in a locked car are in safe custody, and this point needs to be mentioned. It may be that they should be kept in a separate container which is also locked; but it is quite as easy for a thief to steal a separate locked container and open it at his leisure when he gets home as it is to steal drugs from a locked car. That is really a minor point but it is perhaps indicative of the things that need answering.
Then I think that subsection (2)(i) of Clause 10 requires a little further study, because it gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations whereby a doctor may be prohibited from administering to an addict certain scheduled drugs. This is really one of the objects of the Bill. If the doctor does not obey this injunction, of course, he has committed an offence. But there can be cases in which a doctor, quite unwittingly, prescribes drugs for an addict, not knowing the patient to be an addict and not suspecting that he is an addict. The patient then becomes suddenly ill, or gets into trouble with the law, and he is discovered to be an addict. In such a case the

85
doctor, quite unknowingly, has been committing an offence under this Bill. I am quite certain that that is not the intention of this Bill or any of the regulations, but I should like to draw attention to the point to see whether I can get a little further assurance.
LORD ABERDARE: I think I can give one assurance that will satisfy the noble Lord. This clause tidies up and extends the miscellaneous powers that already exist. But under the first subsection the making of regulations is subject to the provisions of this Act. That is, notably, subject to Clause 31, which deals with the procedure that makes consultation with the Advisory Council an essential prerequisite to the making of regulations which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will accept that these regulations are safeguarded to some extent by the fact that the Secretary of State, before making them, must have consultations with the Advisory Council. On the detailed point about the doctor who may find himself in trouble unwittingly in the case of prescribing for an addict, I should like to look into that more closely and give the noble Lord a more considered answer later.
LORD PLATT: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Attempts etc. to commit offences]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 26, leave out ("or the foregoing").
The noble Lord said: Clause 19 is quite a short clause, but I find it rather confusing. I only hope that I do not get confused in moving this Amendment. The clause consists of two subsections, the first of which makes it an offence for a person
"to attempt to commit an offence under any provisions of this Act other than this subsection."
I should have thought that the words, "other than this subsection", were unnecessary. I should not have thought
86
that it was possible for a person "to attempt to attempt to commit an offence", but the draftsmen think that those words should be included.
When we come on to the next subsection we read:
"It is an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence under any provision of this Act other than this or the foregoing subsection".
So far as the words "other than this subsection" are concerned, I again feel that they are unnecessary, because it is hardly possible to incite someone to incite someone to commit an offence. Your Lordships will notice that the words "or the foregoing" which we find in subsection (2) are not included in subsection (1). Therefore—if only I can get this right—it is an offence for a person to attempt to incite another to commit an offence, but it is not an offence for a person to incite another to attempt to commit an offence. Surely one is as necessary as the other? I wonder whether I may leave your Lordships to work out that little puzzle—or, at any rate, I will attempt to incite you to do SO.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to support the Amendment so briefly but eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I should have thought that the words, "other than this subsection" were wholly unnecessary in subsection (1), and the words, "other than this or the foregoing subsection" wholly unnecessary in subsection (2). Subsection (1) merely makes it an offence
"to attempt to commit an offence under any provision of this Act."
That is perfectly clear if the subsection stops there. I agree with the noble Lord's comments on the extra words. It seems to me bad and unnecessary drafting, and I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see that this point is looked at again.
LORD FOOT: I do not want to fall out with the noble and learned Viscount, because I am hoping that in a minute he will give some support to me upon another Amendment. Nevertheless, on this occasion perhaps I might ingratiate myself with the Government by saying that I think they are right. It seems to me perfectly reasonable in Clause 19(1),

87
because of the way in which the clause is framed, to say:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any provision of this Act other than this subsection".
It has to be remembered that the people who have to interpret this Bill, and decide whether somebody can properly be prosecuted, may come to the conclusion that they can be prosecuted for the attempt to commit the offence under Clause 19(1) which is in itself an attempt to commit an offence. So it may well be argued that you can charge a person with attempting to attempt. That is what the final words of that subsection seem to me to put beyond any doubt.
When you come to Clause 19(2), where it provides that:
"It is an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence under any provision of this Act other than this or the foregoing subsection",
this means that in the first place it is an offence for a person to incite another to incite another to commit an offence, which is a nonsense. Equally—I am sorry if I am a little muddled about this—if the concluding words, "other than this or the foregoing subsection" were left out, then you would be in the position that it would be an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence under Clause 19(2) which is in itself the offence of incitement. Equally it would be lunatic (would it not?) to leave out the words, "or the foregoing subsection"—that is the one that relates to attempt—because then it would be possible for a person to be accused of the offence of inciting somebody to attempt to commit an offence. But that is something which could not conceivably happen.
Suppose that Fagin, when he was presiding over his den of little thieves, had incited the Artful Dodger to go out and pick somebody's pocket, but had strictly enjoined him not to go beyond the attempt, but to confine himself to the preliminaries and never go through with the execution, then he would be inciting the boy to attempt to commit an offence. But if he strictly enjoined the young man not to carry the attempt into effect, how can he possibly be convicted of an offence? He is specifically informing the young man that he is not to commit
88
it Therefore, for those reasons it seems to me that in point of fact—with all due deference to the noble Viscount—the draftsmen of this Bill have got it right.
LORD CONESFORD: I hope that the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that the matter should be further considered will be adopted, because I believe that there would be no difficulty in construing the Bill if this particular clause were less wordy. But I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that a good deal of the criticised words can be justified. If I have rightly read the whole of this clause, with the words as they stand, it seems that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, put it, in the view of the draftsman it is possible to attempt to incite. I should have thought you either did incite or you did not. I find it very difficult to know how you distinguish "attempting to incite" from "inciting". For those reasons, I think that on balance first of all we could have a clause less wordy than this, and secondly, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, there is an imperfection.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may add one word—
LORD FOOT: Will the noble and learned Viscount allow me to answer that question before he replies? The noble Lord asks: "Is it possible to attempt to incite something?" I suggest that it could occur in the following circumstances. Suppose you write a letter to somebody, especially during the postal strike, suggesting—
LORD CONESFORD: Could the noble Lord speak a little louder? I find it very difficult to hear him.
LORD FOOT: I am sorry. I was trying to suggest the way in which a person can attempt to incite somebody to commit an offence. I suggest that it can happen in this way. Suppose I were to write a letter to somebody suggesting that he should break into a bank, and that letter is held up in the post, or there is a postal strike at the time and it never reaches him. Surely I should have committed the offence of attempting to incite him to commit the offence; but in fact the attempt remains an attempt because the letter never reached him.
LORD CONESFORD: I had considered that, in the circumstances imagined by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that would be an incitement, but I may be wrong.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In view of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has had in justifying this clause as it now stands, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that to have two subsections are wholly unnecessary. If you had one subsection saying:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence or to incite another to commit an offence under any provision of this Act",
I think that would cover the situation. I do not believe that there would be the slightest difficulty such as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, suggests. I therefore ask that this matter should be reconsidered. Unnecessary verbiage leads to difficulties. It is often assumed that Parliamentary draftsmen have sound reasons for the inclusion of every word in a Bill. It would be found difficult on thorough examination to justify the inclusion of two subsections and so many words.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Before the Minister replies, may I make two small points? As regards what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, may I say that he will find that in the 1965 Act there is a single clause in which these two different matters are dealt with in one sentence. He has been stressing the virtue of existing legislation; and if on this occasion the wording used to cover these points in the 1965 Act were used again it would overcome the difficulty completely. I wonder whether I may give the noble Lord, Lord Foot, an example of how one can incite a person to attempt. I may be quite wrong about it, but I should have thought that if Fagin told one of his little boys to go out and try to pick people's pockets in the Strand, or wherever they were operating, and the boy failed to do so because he was not sufficiently skilled or did not come across a suitable victim, he would nevertheless have attempted to commit an offence, and Fagin would have incited him to attempt to do so.
6.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hope that noble Lords who have spoken in the Committee will give their services to Hansard,
90
because, if I give an undertaking to look at this matter again, I wonder just what the Parliamentary draftsman and legal advisers will be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, whose support on this occasion is most welcome, seems to be thinking on the same linen as the draftsman. The effect of adopting the Amendment would be to make it an offence under this clause to incite a person to attempt to commit an offence under any provision of the Bill. It is on the whole undesirable to have a provision of this kind. The reason, I am informed, is that the act of incitement is itself the offence; and that is so whether the person incited attempts to commit or actually commits an offence, or indeed makes no attempt at all. It is the act of incitement that is the offence. To be convicted of a charge of inciting a person to commit an offence requires only proof of incitement, therefore, and whether or not the incitement was successful is immaterial.
However, far be it from me, when faced with a very powerful opinion by the noble and learned Viscount who formerly sat on the Woolsack, to say that on a matter as complicated as this I can be quite certain that the view I have explained is the correct one. Without giving any undertaking, I am sure it would be right for me to look at the wording of this clause again, so that we can discuss it at Report stage. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord might be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Before doing so, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his contribution which has been responsible for eliciting an undertaking from the noble Lord. It enables me to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Offences relating to the doing of things outside the United Kingdom]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am seeking clarification about Clause 20. I think I am right (the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will correct me if I

91
am wrong) in saying that this provision is not in the existing legislation which this Bill supersedes. Would the noble Lord confirm that point before I go further?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be more helpful to the Committee if the noble Baroness went further, and I will see if I can then give her the reply.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am quite willing. There are two subsections of this clause. They both create offences. There may be similar sections in Acts that I do not know, but I think I am right in saying that they are new in relation to drugs legislation. The first offence seems to me an odd one in two ways. First of all, it says that an offence is committed if somebody in this country
"does any act preparatory to, or in furtherance of, the commission in any place outside the United Kingdom of an act which, if committed in the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under this Act."
In other words, it makes it an offence for somebody in this country to take steps to bring about some result overseas in a country where the action is perfectly legal. It seems to me very odd that one may not in this country assist somebody who wants to do something that is legal in his country though it happens to be illegal here. The second thing that I find odd about it is that this is an offence under this Bill, but when I turn to the Schedule of penalties I cannot find any penalty on it. I should very much like to know what the penalty is.
When one comes to subsection (2), I fully understand that one has no right in this country to plot, as it were, to do in another country something that is illegal in that country. That is a serious offence, and that, I think, comes under the large category of 14-years offences, about which I shall have something to say later. But I should be very grateful if some reason could be given why one should not help a person to do something which is perfectly legal in his own country even though, owing to the ridiculous and antiquated laws imposed upon us by our Government, it happens to be illegal in this country.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have the answer to the question the noble Baroness put as to whether or not this
92
is a new power. The answer is that it is not. It is already on the Statute Book in Section 13(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Indeed, it has been a feature of drugs legislation for over twenty years; it is not a novel provision. The reason for the clause, and the reason for the existence of the power in the 1965 Act, is that it is designed to give broad effect to the principle of international cooperation in penalising unlawful activities with regard to dangerous drugs in one country having, or likely to have, effects in another. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs deals with this matter at very considerable length, and so I will spare the Committee the quotation which is in front of me. But it is an aspect of the international treaty to which I have already referred.
The noble Baroness asked whether the penalties for this offence had been omitted in some way from the Bill before us. I understand that that is not so; the penalties are contained in Clause 25(3), which provides penalties for offences under this clause. That answers the two specific questions. We have an international Treaty obligation; it is to assist people in other countries, as well as in this country, to prevent the trafficking in, the supply and the misuse of drugs generally. It is an aspect of the law which, on the whole, it seems worth carrying forward in the present Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord rose before I noticed he was going to, because I wanted to put a point to him on this clause, though I have to say that there has been no attempt by the noble Baroness to incite me to do so. Although I should not want in any way to weaken the penal provisions of this Bill there is always a considerable difficulty of definition with regard to "an act preparatory to the commission of an offence". I know there are precedents for having that, but it is extremely difficult to define; and, although there are statutory provisions to that effect in other Statutes, I think it is very seldom indeed that there is a prosecution for "an act preparatory to the commission of an offence".
Here, as we may see from this clause, the act may be merely the fact of having something in your possession. So, if you had something in your possession, presumably in some way the prosecution

93
would have to prove that that possession by you was preparatory to the commission of an offence. I think that would be extremely difficult to prove, and I am wondering whether it really is necessary again to repeat in this Bill these words which, I believe I am right in saying, have caused such difficulty in the past. There is quite a different aspect of it when one refers to an act in furtherance of the commission of a crime". I should have thought that was pretty specific; but where do you draw the line here? I would ask the noble Lord to have a look at it before we get to the Report stage.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I will certainly have a look at it. As I have said, this is a matter of international obligations under the United Nations Convention. I did not have warning of this particular point that the noble Baroness has raised, and perhaps if I study it with greater care I can make a fuller statement in regard to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his clarification. I still think this is a very odd provision, and a very odd form of legislation, that one finds in a Schedule of penalties the penalty for subsection (2) of Clause 20 but not for subsection (1) of that clause. It seems odd that they should be separated in this way. I should have thought that there might be a more intelligible way of presenting this. The other thing I would say is that we are constantly running up against the Single Convention. We are not bound to all eternity by the Single Convention, and it seems to me that we ought to think about suggesting a modern version of our obligations under that Convention.
On Question, Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene at this point to say that it has been agreed through the usual channels—and I hope that all those most directly concerned have been consulted—that we should continue with this Committee stage until 8 o'clock; or that, if by any chance we should reach Clause 40 before 8 o'clock, we should stop at Clause 40. We will resume the Committee stage on Thursday next.
Clause 23 [Powers to search and obtain evidence]:
6.54 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert:
"A person commits an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under the foregoing subsection; or

(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are referred to in the foregoing subsection."

The noble Lord said: I shall try to be as brief as I can on this Amendment, but may I start by saying, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that there is no hidden or overt intention in this Amendment to "go soft on drugs". Indeed, this Amendment is concerned only peripherally with the subject of drugs. It is mainly concerned with the state of the English law and whether on this occasion we are going about it in the right way.
May I say this by way of explanation and clarification? Clause 23 provides three different ways in which searches can be made of persons and premises. Under subsection (1) a constable or other person can be authorised by the Secretary of State to go into the premises of anybody who is carrying on a business of producing or distributing drugs, such as a chemist, and so on—carrying it on presumably, under licence. He can then call upon the occupier of the premises and the person carrying on the business to produce for his inspection various documents, records, stocks, drugs and the like. That is, of course, a perfectly proper and reasonable provision.
The next form of search which is provided for under subsection (2) is the form of search about which I have no doubt there will be some debate later on; that is, the search which can be carried out by a constable who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is in possession or control of drugs. It gives the constable powers to stop and search that person and to detain him for the purpose of a search, and it also gives him powers to seize and detain any drugs which he may find on that person or in any vehicle.
The third kind of search, which is under subsection (3), is the search carried out under a search warrant issued by a magistrate on evidence being given to him that there is reasonable grounds for thinking that certain premises may contain drugs, and which authorises a constable to enter those premises and to search for any drugs which may be on the premises, to seize them and so on. Those are the three kinds of search which are provided for in this clause.
Then if we look at subsection (4)—and this is the subsection which concerns me—it is provided in relation to all three forms of search that a person commits an offence if he:
"(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under this section".
If I may pause there, I have no objection to that at all, except only to say this—and I will perhaps refer to this in a slightly different context later on. My understanding is that under the present law there is already a perfectly clear offence committed by anybody who obstructs a constable in the exercise of his duties. The part of the subsection to which I wish to draw the special attention of the Committee is that which goes on to say that a person commits an offence if he:
"(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as aforesaid."
May I say at once that I see no objection to that particular part of the subsection in so far as it applies to the first kind of search of which I was speaking, where a person goes into the premises of somebody carrying on the business of the production or the distribution of a drug and calls upon that person to produce his records and his stocks and his documents. I see no objection to that, because there are ample precedents for it. One thinks, for example, of the law which requires scrap metal dealers to keep records and that those records shall be available for inspection by any authorised person. One thinks of the Firearms Act, which requires the dealers in firearms to keep records of all their transactions. It even comes down to the fact that there is an obligation under the Road Traffic Acts on anybody to produce his licence, his certificate of insurance, and so on.
There are multitudes of precedents for that kind of thing, but how does subsection (4)—and particularly the fact that a person commits an offence if he fails to produce any drug—work with the other two kinds of search; that is, where a policeman stops a man in the street under the powers to stop and search, and wants to search him? Supposing the policeman says to that man, "I am looking for drugs; have you got any?", and if that man has a drug in his possession but remains silent or says to the policeman, "I do not want to say anything to you", is not that person, under the terms of subsection (4)(b), quite clearly committing an offence of failing to produce a drug?
Let me take, if I may, another illustration. Under the subsection (3) procedure, where a police officer gets a search warrant enabling him to go into premises where it is reasonably suspected that a drug offence may be being committed, he goes in and says to all the people present, "I am looking for drugs". He may not go as far as this, but he could. He may say: "I require anyone with any drugs in their possession to produce them to me". Suppose the people remain silent. They would, as I understand this provision, automatically thereby be committing an offence, because they are failing, without reasonable excuse, to produce the drugs which they have in their possession. Therefore, if a police officer goes into premises in circumstances of that kind and in fact finds drugs in the possession of people who had previously been asked to produce them but who had remained silent, passive and inactive, they can, as I interpret this clause, then be prosecuted not only for having that drug in their possession, the substantive offence, but also for having failed to produce the drug when they were invited to do so.
It is a fairly serious matter, I suggest, because the penalty for such silence, for such passivity, if I may call it that, in such circumstances, is, on summary conviction, six months or £400, or both, and, on indictment, two years or a fine, or both. As it seems to me, this requirement, in the context of those two kinds of searches, is a clear breach and abrogation of what is a very ancient common law principle, that no man should be called on to incriminate himself. In this case,

97
as I understand the clause, it is requiring a person in those circumstances to speak up; he is not entitled to remain silent. If he remains silent, or fails to produce the drug when required to do so, he is then committing an offence, and, therefore, under pain of penalty, he is being required to incriminate himself. I hope that I interpret the matter rightly. This seems to me to carry with it a matter of considerable principle.
On Second Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was winding up the debate, he said that this Bill took no new powers. I intervened to ask him whether this subsection was not taking new powers. I was wrong about that, as the noble Lord will no doubt now know, if he did not know then, because there is a similar provision in the 1965 Act; it is not exactly in identical terms but it is substantially the same. Of course, if you go back to the 1951 Act, you will find what is a similar provision there, although, of course, at that time, in 1965 and in 1951, there was no right of search comparable to the one we have under subsection (2) in this Bill; that is, the right of the constable to search a man in the street. There was no comparable power in those days, because, of course, that was only introduced in the Act of 1967. But so far as the subsection (1) and subsection (3) kind of search is concerned—that is, under a search warrant—it is correct that there has been this, as I think, objectionable power, running back certainly as long ago as 1951, and it may be before that, because my researches have not gone that far.
One of the questions I would ask the Minister is this. I have made what investigations have been open to me to see whether this power requiring a person to incriminate himself has in fact ever been used; that is to say, whether anybody has ever been charged with the offence of failing to produce a drug in the circumstances which I have described. So far as my researches have gone, I cannot find that there ever has been a case. If that is so, may it not be because the prosecution would have been ashamed to bring a charge under this objectionable clause, as I think it; that is to say, that they would double up the charges, charging the person with the substantive offence of possessing the drug or supplying the drug, and then go on to charge him with the
98
further offence of having failed to disclose it.
This constitutional principle that a man should never be obliged to incriminate himself can, of course, be illustrated from many sources. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than necessary, but I would give one illustration of the way in which this principle has been recently enunciated in the courts. It is the case of Rice v. Connolly, which is reported in [1966] All England Law Reports. It was an appeal to the Divisional Court by way of Case Stated against a conviction for wilful obstruction of the police, aid the Divisional Court consisted of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, the late Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice James. The headnote of the case reads:
"The appellant was seen by police officers in the early hours of the morning behaving suspiciously in an area where on the same night breaking offences had taken place.
"On being questioned he refused to say where he was going or where he had come from. He refused to give his full name and address, though he did give a name and the name of a road, which were not untrue. He refused to accompany the police to a Police box for identification purposes, saying, 'If you want me, you will have to arrest me'. He was arrested and charged with wilfully obstructing the police contrary to S. 51(3) of the Act of 1964. On appeal it was conceded that 'wilfully' imported something done without lawful excuse. It was held that … the appellant had been entitled to decline to answer the questions put to him and (prior to his arrest) to accompany the police officer on request to the police box to establish identity; accordingly, in the circumstances, 'wilful obstruction' by the appellant was not established, although he had been obstructive, because no obstruction without lawful excuse had been established."
I should like to quote two short passages, one from the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, and the second from the judgment of Mr. Justice Marshall. The Lord Chief Justice said this:
"'Wilful' in this context in my judgment means not only 'intentional' but also connotes something which is done without lawful excuse, and that indeed is conceded by counsel who appears for the prosecution in this case. Accordingly, the sole question here is whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed "—
and I would emphasise these words—
"the whole basis of the common law is that right of the individual to refuse to answer

99
questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest".
Then he went on:
"Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that it is undoubtedly an obstruction, and has been so held, for a person questioned by the police to tell a 'cock and bull' story, to put the police off by giving them false information, and I think he would say"—
that is, counsel for the respondent—
"'Well, what is the real distinction, it is very little away from giving false information to giving no information at all; if that does in fact make it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties then there is a wilful obstruction'."
Then the Lord Chief Justice concluded with these words:
"In my judgment there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story, something which on no view a citizen has a right to do, and preserving silence or refusing to answer, something which he has every right to do."
Mr. Justice Marshall in the course of his judgment, which was only four lines in length, said this:
"In order to uphold this conviction it appears to me that one has to assent to the proposition that where a citizen is acting merely within his legal rights, he is thereby committing a criminal offence."
I hope it is not going too far to say that that is precisely what this subsection, of which I am complaining, provides. In so many words it says that if a person stands upon his constitutional right to say nothing, to be silent and to be passive, then under this subsection he is guilty of an offence for which he may be liable to two years' imprisonment. I ask myself this question: can one think of any other similar form of search authorised by the law where there is any comparable provision to that which I am criticising? One thinks first of all of the Theft Act and stolen goods. There is in the Theft Act provision for the issue of search warrants authorising premises to be searched for stolen goods, but there is nothing in the Theft Act comparable to this subsection. There is nothing in the Theft Act—one would be astonished if there were—to the effect that where a person's premises are entered by a police officer looking for stolen goods, if the occupier fails without reasonable excuse to produce any stolen goods to the police officer, then he would be guilty
100
of an offence. There is nothing comparable to that. I have also looked at the Firearms Act. I will not go into that because it is rather complicated; but the provision in that Act is quite different from the provision in this Bill.
The other matter which concerns me is this. Under the Road Safety Act it is provided that where a person is taken to a police station on suspicion of having too much alcohol in his blood, and is then invited to provide a specimen of urine or blood, he must be told at the time when he is invited to give that specimen that if he does not do so he may be committing an offence and may render himself liable to imprisonment, to disqualification and to a fine. There is nothing comparable to that provision here. A person in possession of some drug may be on premises which are entered tinder the protection of a search warrant. He may be told by the police officer, "If you have got a drug I want you to produce it to me". If he remains silent there is no need for the police officer to warn him, saying, "If you do not produce it you are rendering yourself liable to two years' imprisonment". There is no protection of that kind, comparable to the protection which we give to somebody under the provisions of the Road Safety Act.
Perhaps your Lordships would be good enough to look at Amendment No. 8, which I am now moving, and at Amendment No. 11. What I am proposing is that we should take subsection (4) from where it stands in Clause 23 and bring it up immediately under the first kind of search—that is, under subsection (1). Then I propose that we should slightly amend the wording of the subsection so that it reads
"A person commits an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under the foregoing subsection; or

(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are referred to in the foregoing subsection."—

that is subsection (1). Thus we should retain the full power to require a person who is carrying on a business to produce all his documents and his stocks and so on. The change which this Amendment would bring about is that that subsection

101
would no longer be applicable to the two types of search under subsections (2) and (3) of the Bill. I do not think there is anything objectionable in principle to that, because obviously there is a clear distinction between requiring a person to incriminate himself and requiring a person to produce evidence that he is in fact complying with the law—as in the case of the chemist, who has to keep records and so on.
I do not think that this difficulty to which I have attempted to draw attention is cured by the words which appear in subsection (4); namely:
"… without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him".
I ask myself whether these words conceivably put the matter right. I think that manifestly they do not, because if a reasonable excuse for not producing a drug is that the common law of England says that you need not, then subsection (4) becomes a nonsense, for everyone would automatically be entitled to be acquitted. I apologise to the Committee for taking up so much time, but I hope that your Lordships will think that this is a matter of some legal consequence. My last word is this. I started off by saying that this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with one's views concerning the drug problem. Although it is not a new clause I believe that it represents a grave departure from one of the basic principles upon which the criminal law of this country has so long rested. I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be helpful if I intervened fairly early in this discussion, not to curtail it but rather to open it up. The effect of the Amendment would be to apply to only subsection (1) of Clause 23 the provisions of subsection (4) of the clause which, as the clause stands now, apply, with some exceptions to which I shall refer, to the whole clause. I accept at once what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said in moving the Amendment, that he is concerned entirely with the clarity of the law and not with policies towards cannabis or drugs misuse generally.
As he said, this clause does not assume a power which was previously unknown to English law. He has told the Committee that Section 14(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 contains similar provisions.
102
Indeed, these are to be found in earlier drugs legislation. The 1965 Act—the present legislation—by Section 14(3) makes it an offence for a person wilfully to delay or obstruct a person who is exercising his powers to enter premises, whether with or without a search warrant, for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the law. It also makes it an offence for a person to conceal any books, stocks, drugs, substances or documents that he may be required to produce for purposes of inspection. Those who have power to enter premises under these provisions are police constables and persons duly authorised by the Secretary of State—that is, Home Office Drugs Branch Inspectors and Regional Medical Officers of the Health Departments in England, Scotland and Wales.
The principle that is embodied in Clause 23(4), that a person is obliged, on pain of criminal proceedings, to co-operate with authorities who are lawfully investigating an offence, has its parallel in numerous other Statutes. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has mentioned some of these. He gave the example of the car driver who has to produce his driving licence when required to do so by a police constable, under Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. I shall not go through any other examples in the law, although I will mention one that he did not include in his selection, namely, the Exchange Control Act 1947. Schedule 5, paragraph 1, enables the Treasury to require:
"any person … to furnish … any information in his possession or control which the Treasury or the person so authorised, as the case may be, may require for the purpose of securing compliance with or detecting evasion of this Act."
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has argued that subsection (4)(b) is objectionable in principle, in that as paragraph (b) appears to relate to subsection (2)—that is, the "stop and search" subsection—and subsection (3)—which relates to the "search of premises by warrant"—it could mean that a person would commit an offence if he failed to produce evidence that might incriminate him. Despite what the noble Lord has said, I do not believe that this is the draftsman's intention. He has explained his point of view in a very full speech, and it is a somewhat fine point of interpretation, but if noble Lords will look at the wording of subsections (2)

103
and (3) they will see that it is difficult to envisage how an offence of concealing items could, in practice, be committed, if for no other reason than that if a search failed to produce such items there would be no proof that they were being concealed. However, I know this is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has strong feelings, and he has looked into it very carefully. It would not be right, therefore, to take up an inflexible position at this stage in the Committee's deliberations. Other noble Lords would like to take part, and the Government certainly want to hear what they have to say. Perhaps I could leave what I have to say at this stage at that point, and possibly come in again towards the end of the discussion on this Amendment.
VISCOUNT D1LHORNE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has performed a valuable service in drawing attention to the provisions of this paragraph (b) tucked away at the end of the clause. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has just said, that there are exceptions in our Statute law to the rule that a man is not compelled to incriminate himself, but I think it is right that when any such proposal comes before Parliament the reasons for it should be most carefully examined and a strong case made out for any such provision. The noble Lord who has just spoken seemed to suggest that this paragraph was in some way linked with the preceding contents of this clause. It is not, and that is where I think there is a real defect in drafting. It is a subsection of general application.
It is perfectly true that the first part, paragraph (a), is linked with what goes before in the clause. It reads:
"A person commits an offence if he—
(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under this section;"
I am quite sure that that is fully warranted, and I disagree with the noble Lord's Amendment, in that he restricts the intentional obstruction to obstruction in the exercise of the powers under subsection (1). I think it is right as it stands that the intentional obstruction should be obstructing a police officer, or anybody else, in the execution of the powers given in subsections (1), (2) and (3).
104
But when one comes on to paragraph (b), it is a new offence, wholly unlinked and unassociated (except for the words "as aforesaid"), with the other contents of the clause. It provides that:
"A person commits an offence if he—
(b) conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as aforesaid."
That is a perfectly general criminal offence. It is committed if you conceal any drugs. It does not matter whether or not a police officer, or anyone else, is seeking to exercise the powers under the preceding subsection. If a man has a drug in his hand, he will be in possession of it. That may be one offence. But if he puts it in his pocket he has concealed it, and therefore will be guilty of two offences. He will have concealed it, and he will be in possession of it. Is that really necessary? This provision about being guilty of a criminal offence if you fail to produce a drug is also an offence of a very general character.
When I read this clause I thought—and I am always reluctant to criticise the draftsman, because drafting is a very difficult art—that, so far as paragraph (b) was concerned, it was just an example of bad drafting. I am not really worried by the fact that in earlier drugs legislation there may be precedents for this kind of drafting: if there are, it is quite time that we improved it. I should have thought that the real intention behind (b) was that it should be linked only with subsection (1). I may be wrong about that: it might go on to subsection (2). But certainly it should be linked to what precedes it in this clause. Why I say I thought it must be intended to be linked with subsection (1) is by reason of the words "as aforesaid". It refers to:
"such books, documents, stocks or drugs as aforesaid".
When you look back to what the words "as aforesaid" mean, you go straight back to subsection (1) which says what kind of books or documents they may be, and what may be inspected.
I should have no objection at all if the offence created by paragraph (b) were linked with subsection (1). I cannot but think that that really is the intention. If I that is so, then you get to the position that if the producer or supplier of any

105
controlled drugs conceals them, or without reasonable excuse fails to produce them when the demand is made on him by the constable or other person to do so, he will be guilty of an offence. In that context this offence is complementary to subsection (1). It is not complementary, perhaps, to subsection (2)—at any rate, I doubt if it is. But what I think is absolutely wrong is that it should be a distinct and complete general offence committed in any circumstances, not just when the powers under this clause are being exercised. If no adjustment of this is made—which I think is really no more than a matter of drafting—then I, for one, would support any Amendment to delete the words of paragraph (b) as they now stand. But I could not, for the reason I have given, go so far as to support the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his Amendment, because I think he limits the first part of that Amendment too narrowly. He limits it to subsection (1), and it certainly should extend to the other parts of the clause.
LORD AIREDALE: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount's interpretation of this clause is correct. So far as I know, if you are being searched by the police for a small piece of valuable jewellery, such as a small diamond ring, which you could easily conceal in the lining of your garment and make it very difficult for the police to find, you commit no offence by failing to produce it when the police begin searching. That being so—and it has been so for centuries: indeed, so far as I know, being so ever since the English criminal law began—it seems very curious that if you are being searched, not for a small piece of valuable jewellery but for a small quantity of not very valuable drugs, you commit an offence if you fail to produce to the police the drug that you are carrying.
That is a very strange anomaly, and one wants to know what is so special about drugs that this new breach in the English criminal law has to be made, in order to compel people to produce drugs, so making the life of the police easier when they are searching for drugs, but not when they are searching for other commodities which may have been stolen. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount's interpretation of the meaning
106
of this clause is the correct one and that we shall have the matter clarified.
7.33 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I have added my name to this Amendment, so I naturally support it. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, "I do not believe it is the draftsman's intention", and that may well be so. But what I am sure he will agree about is how this is going to be interpreted. As I see the matter, looking at it from the more lowly position of one who, as a magistrate, would have to enforce this, it means (and to me this is a most important matter) that people could be charged with two offences instead of one. We seek to move these paragraphs up under subsection (1) because that is where we consider they may apply. I am not sure that I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the point about paragraph (a), because I should have thought that the intention in the words "obstructs a person", and so on, was already covered by various other Acts. I should have thought these paragraphs did not need to be put in subsection (4) and that they could be put where the Amendment puts them, which is after subsection (1). In view of what has been said, I hope that the Minister will either accept the Amendment as it is, or will consider it further and bring back something which certainly eliminates what could be a very grave injustice.
LORD FOOT: I do not know whether it is permissible for me to intervene at this stage in order to try to shorten matters. If it is permissible within the Rules of the Committee, I should like to say at once that if, in view of the assistance which I have received from the noble and learned Viscount in this matter, with all the weight of his authority behind it, the Minister is inclined to say that he will have another look at this point before the next stage, then I will certainly withdraw the Amendment. That will not put him to the trouble of making a long answer this evening. I do not know whether that is helpful.
In making that proposal, I should like to make one observation upon some of the words which fell from the lips of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, upon this matter of obstruction.

107
I agree that it would be perfectly appropriate to leave paragraph (a) where it stands, having shifted the whole of subsection (4) up under subsection (1) and making it applicable in toto only to subsection (1). But I should have thought that under the Police Act 1964, with which the noble and learned Viscount will be familiar, there were perfectly ample powers to deal with anybody who obstructed a police officer—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am not very concerned about this obstruction. But I think there is some convenience in repeating it in the same Act which is dealing with drugs, since it is easier to refer to than having to look at a various number of books. It is paragraph (b) with which I am concerned.
LORD FOOT: Equally, of course, I should have no objection to its being repeated at the end of this clause, as the noble and learned Viscount suggested. I do not know whether that assists the Minister.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for the opportunity which the noble Lord has given me, and I have listened, as I undertook to do, with close attention to what has been said in this discussion. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has very rightly drawn attention to paragraph (a) of subsection (4)—that is, the one dealing with obstruction—because it is an extremely important part of subsection (4); we cannot consider that subsection without looking at paragraphs (a) and (b) together. There seems general agreement that paragraph (a) of subsection (4) is unobjectionable; the argument is centred on whether or not paragraph (b) of subsection (4) applies only to subsection (1), or whether it could apply also to subsections (2) and (3).
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect, it goes further than that. I have contended that it is not linked to any of those subsections. It is a perfectly general criminal provision creating a new offence.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I accept that correction, of course. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded the Committee that
108
when I spoke earlier on this Amendment I said that I did not believe it was the draftsman's intention that this power in subsection (4)(b) should refer to subsections (2) and (3); nor do I. But in the light of what has been said, it is wise that we should try to avoid any possible doubt on this matter. I think therefore that the Committee would be well advised to accept the implications of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt in the future. I am advised that the best way of achieving this, bearing in mind what has been said about paragraph (a) of Clause 23(4), would be to leave paragraphs (a) and (b) where they are, but to remove the word "aforesaid" from paragraph (b) and to insert instead some new words—possibly, "as referred to in subsection (1) above".
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect, I do not think that that would do what is required, because that would only refer back to the books, documents, stocks or drugs, and that is the same as "aforesaid".
LORD WINDLESHAM: As I understand it, that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I think he is quite happy that people who have an obligation to keep books—chemists, pharmaceutical manufacturers and so on—should be subject to the provisions of subsection (4)(b). I am sorry if I misunderstood him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but merely changing "as aforesaid" to "as referred to" in subsection (1) does not achieve that object. That is the point I am making; and if I may say so I think the noble Lord would be well advised to reconsider the wording again. The object of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, so far as I can see, is the same as mine: really to make paragraph (b) relate to subsection (1); and that is not done by changing the words "as aforesaid" to "as referred to" in subsection (1). That is a change without a difference.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I am interested in the point which the noble and learned Viscount has made. At one time he said that paragraph (b) was related to subsection (1)—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, I did not. I said that the trouble was that it was not.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: That it should be related to subsection (1)?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Yes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ANINGER: But at another stage he said that it created an entirely new criminal offence of concealment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Of course it does, as it now stands. What I am saying is that it should be amended to relate it to subsection (1). My objection to it now—I hope I have made it clear—is that it creates a completely general offence unrelated to subsection (1).
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: It surely would be a complete absurdity to create a completely new criminal offence in a subsection of a main clause of this Bill; and it would appear that, if it does that, it is creating an offence of concealment, which means that if you have any drugs you must walk about with them in your hand all of the time.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hope that members of the Committee will realise that I am trying to be helpful. Instead, I am assailed on both sides. It may be found that the solution I have proposed will do the trick, though I am open to correction. We are to have a Report stage, and I will certainly look at this extremely carefully to see how the aims which the noble Lord has explained can best be achieved—whether it be by the method I have suggested or by some other method. If the noble Lord is happy with that assurance, perhaps we can leave the matter until Report stage.
LORD AIREDALE: May I suggest that there is one other difficulty in paragraph (b) which might be cured if we got rid of the words "any such" and substituted "the"? Then it would read,
"… fails to produce the books, documents, stocks or drugs as are"
mentioned in subsection (1). I think that might do it. But if you keep the generality by retaining "any such", then I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that I do not think it does it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think that will do it, either.
LORD FOOT: I am very grateful to the Minister for having gone so far as he has. I think we are agreed in principle upon this, and the only question now remaining is as to how it is to be done. I should like, if I may, to recommend my own Amendment, which seems to me to achieve the object in the best possible way, because your Lordships will remember that it comes in after subsection (1) and says:
"A person commits an offence if he … intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of his powers under the foregoing subsection"—
Let me pause there to say that I do not mind that being repeated later in relation to the other forms of search—
"or … conceals or without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are referred to in the foregoing subsection".
I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount thinks that that goes far enough—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think it does.
LORD FOOT: Then I take the noble Viscount's point. If it does not go far enough, then I shall be only too anxious to find words that will carry it all the way. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I said earlier that we would adjourn the Committee stage of this Bill at 8 o'clock. The next Amendment is an extremely important one of principle, and I know that a large number of your Lordships have stayed particularly in order that you might record your verdict about it. On the other hand, I feel that it is an Amendment which will take a considerable time to discuss, and it would mean that the rest of the business would be extremely late. Therefore, if your Lordships agree, I would move that the House do now resume on the understanding that the proceedings on the Bill should be continued as first business on Thursday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships may recall that the Bill is promoted by the Bristol Corporation for the purpose of authorising the closure of the City Docks, which are in the centre of the city and have now become obsolete. I think it is now generally conceded that the City Docks are no longer a viable proposition and must be closed. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House, to which I shall refer later, certainly came to that conclusion themselves, and accept that these docks are no longer viable. We had a most interesting debate on the Bill on March 5, 1970, when your Lordships were good enough to give it a Second Reading. The Bill was then opposed on what I may call amenity grounds, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Henley, whom I see in his place to-night; Lord Methuen, who is not here; Lord Chorley, who I am glad to see is here, and others. Indeed, on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Henley, described the point at issue as of very great amenity consequence.
Subsequent to the Bill's having been given a Second Reading on that day it was considered by a Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who will be speaking later this evening. The hearing by the Committee last May took no less than six whole days, I understand; and in addition the Select Committee paid a visit to Bristol in order to see for themselves the City Docks and the other parts of the city which are affected by the proposals. To cut a long story short, the Select Committee found the Preamble to the Bill proved, but they made certain amendments to the Bill the short effect of which is to provide a new means of access to the St. Philip's Reach section of the Floating Harbour from the New Cut. The Amendments which they incorporated give St. Philip's Reach, after the closure of the City Docks, the same status as the remainder of the Floating Harbour; that is to say, in general terms the whole of the water area of the Floating Harbour will remain undiminished. It will be preserved for the use of pleasure
112
craft not exceeding certain dimensions laid down in the Bill.
Now these amendments by the Select Committee followed one of the suggestions made by the Petitioners, the Bristol Civic Society and others, who appeared before the Select Committee on their Petition as representing amenity interests, and I believe that they are now satisfied with the Bill as amended. The proposals contained in the Bill are important, and they have aroused a good deal of interest in this House and elsewhere. For this reason the Select Committee made a special Report on the Bill—the Report which is dated September 29, 1970, and which is now before us. If I may be allowed to say so, I think that this Report is an admirably lucid summary of the various complicated issues which fell to be considered by the Select Committee and is really a model of what a Report of this kind ought to be. If I may say so, had the Select Committee been able to prevail upon Her Majesty's Stationery Office to put a map at the back of their Report, we should then have got a very valuable document indeed. It is extremely difficult without a map to follow the complicated business of what is happening in central Bristol. I have a map, but I am afraid that most noble Lords have not. I do not need to refer to the Report in detail, because no doubt such noble Lords as are interested in the matter will already have read it. As I say, it is extremely clear and lucid. But the fact is that the Select Committee found the case for the Bill proved, and recommended that it be allowed to proceed, subject to Amendments made which are now incorporated in the Bill and to which I have referred.
In conclusion, I would only say that I regret that it was not possible to bring this Bill before your Lordships before now, the Second Reading having been last March. This was due in part to the fact that, following the General Election, it was necessary to carry the Bill into the new Parliament, and in part to the very real desire of Bristol Corporation to negotiate with people who may be affected by the detailed provisions of the Bill without subjecting them to the expense of petitioning against it. I am happy to say that the Corporation have been able to conclude negotiations satisfactory to both sides with most, if not

113
all, of what I might call the potential petitioners. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
8.2 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, last March, I wish to say that this Bill enjoys the continuing approval of Her Majesty's Government. As the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has told us, this Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, is now one which should commend itself to your Lordships.
This Bill is a local measure promoted by Bristol Corporation in their role as port authority for the Port of Bristol. The Bill falls within the field of concern of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But, so far as his general responsibility for ports is concerned, his interest is very limited because the proposal to close the City Docks is essentially a management decision by the Corporation. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend recognises that Bristol need to adjust their statutory responsibilities to the facts of modern commercial life. Geographically, the City Docks are at a disadvantage. They are situated about seven miles from the mouth of the Avon. The physical limits of the river restrict the size of vessels able to reach the docks. The dock area itself is restricted and is unsuitable for modern forms of traffic. As a result, the City Docks have for some years been losing trade to the more modern and easily reached docks downstream at Avonmouth and Portishead, also operated by Bristol. I understand that City Docks are run at a substantial financial loss. Modernisation is not worth while because the restrictions imposed by the River Avon would still remain. In this context, closure makes good sense and would allow the Corporation to concentrate upon the management of the modern docks downstream.
During the debate in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill, anxiety was expressed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the filling in of the Floating Harbour and its subsequent development. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the then Government pointed out, this development would have
114
been subject to full planning control, including the possibility that, since the Corporation are themselves the local planning authority, the Secretary of State could call in for decision by himself any such development if the circumstances at the time called for it. As the House has heard, the Bill was amended in Committee so as to exclude the power it originally contained to fill in the Floating Harbour.
The Government were themselves anxious about certain buildings of special architectural or historic interest which appeared to be affected by the proposals in the Bill for constructing a fixed bridge over St. Augustine's Reach. The Corporation have assured the Secretary of State that only four such buildings would be endangered. Before anything could happen to three of the four, which are listed buildings, the Corporation would need to obtain consent. The Secretary of State would be almost certain to call in for decision by himself any application for this consent. The fourth building, a warehouse, is not listed, but the Promoters have undertaken to consult the Secretary of State about the effect of their proposals on it.
Some concern has been expressed about the need to improve on the Bill's provision for compensation. The Department have accepted that three firms are affected by the proposed constraint on navigation. The Compensation Code is at present being reviewed by the Government, and I have to advise the House that it would, in our view, be quite wrong to anticipate in this Private Bill the outcome of that review. Any changes of the Code which were decided upon should properly be made in general legislation applying universally in similar circumstances.
In view of the increasing use of inland navigation for pleasure cruising, the Government consider it desirable that there should continue to be a route for pleasure craft to proceed between the tidal Avon and the upper river. We note that this is provided for in the Bill. Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, on his hard work on this Bill and to express to your Lordships the hope that you will give him your support on this Third Reading.
8.7 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I have many people to congratulate, but I cannot be quite so quick about it as were the two preceding speakers in their admirably short speeches. First, as one who spoke in support of the Petitioners' case, may I say how much I admire the admirable Special Report produced by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in saying that this is a model of a Report? On Second Reading, I said that I sometimes feel that Select Committees cannot examine issues of this sort in the way in which they ought to be able to do so. I said jokingly to the noble Earl before the debate began to-day, "It's a lucky dip, isn't it?" He replied, "You must not say that!" My Lords, I do say it. Sometimes it is a lucky dip; but it came out to be a good dip this time—not only lucky but good. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee for having performed their task so admirably.
What, in effect, they have done is to preserve the whole of the Floating Harbour. That is only one of the things they have done, but it is the principal one. The Floating Harbour is unique not only to England but to Europe. Even if it costs something to preserve, even if it means that one must forgo a certain amount of land that would otherwise be developed, it is nevertheless something for which future generations will look to Bristol City with gratitude. I can think of castles and houses which in the past were destroyed for railway lines and on which we now look back and say, "If only we had had that extra bit of sense, we could have preserved them and still have made the railway lines as good."
This is what I felt when I embarked on this case of Bristol. I know the land fairly well. It seems to me to be something of incomparable beauty which does not exist anywhere else in the world, and I felt that, before destroying it, another "think" was required. The advantage of our debates is that we have had that other "think". When the Bill came up for Second Reading the noble Earl suggested that a Second Reading debate on a Private Bill of this nature was unusual. Indeed, it is, my Lords. He also suggested
116
that it was perhaps due to the failure on the part of certain interests—myself—to appreciate the underlying processes and perhaps to misunderstand the true intentions of the Promoters of the Bill. He may well have been right; we may have misunderstood some of the things that the Corporation, with the best intentions, were trying to do. We are all weak vessels and we can all feel concern at what is put before us.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I think that the virtue of having put forward the views that we did is that there has been a fairly extensive debate on this issue, and I believe that it has been a useful exercise. Whereas my friends and I had felt that perhaps this matter had been ill-considered in certain respects, we now feel that it has been considered, and considered very fully; and I believe that more or less the right answer has come up. Even if the Corporation feel that the right answer has not been given, it is still entirely open to them, if they so wish, to abandon any of the suggestions and to start again from scratch. Obviously they are not going to do this, but it is open to them. This is where I think, as I said, that we have many congratulations to extend. In fact, the congratulations are due to us on having forced the issue into the public view.
As I say, the Petitioners' case has been conceded in very large measure. There are one or two matters on which I should perhaps have liked to go even further than the Select Committee went. But I can understand that there are very good reasons—as no doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—why some of the things that I should have liked are not possible. First, I feel that in the small points that I shall put before your Lordships there are aspects of the matter which help to give full effect—I say that with great emphasis—to the wish of the Select Committee, and indeed to the express desires and intentions of the Corporation; that is to say, to ensure a large variety of craft on the whole of the Floating Harbour.
I should like to see it made a duty, rather than left merely permissive (subject of course to by-laws, to ensure the minimum of inconvenience to road traffic), that the Corporation swing the bridges at Cumberland Basin. Before the Select Committee the Corporation

117
accepted that it is one of the traditions of Bristol that tall masts come into the heart of the city. The Corporation told the Committee that they intended to keep the two bridges at Cumberland Basin swinging, thereby enabling large yachts to sail as far as the point at which the Outer Circular Road crosses the Floating Harbour. Unless these two bridges continue to swing, tall ships will be blocked from the Floating Harbour. I think this point should be safeguarded by a further proviso to Clause 24, because it seems to me that such a provision would ensure that fairly large ships, like the "Winston Churchill", would be able to come; and that is what the Corporation said they wished to see. This is the sort of thing that could be the subject of an Amendment in another place. I think it would be quite unsuitable for me to suggest anything of this nature to your Lordships to-night. As the noble Earl has already said, we have worked long and hard on this Bill, and it would merely be tiresome to your Lordships if I were to attempt to modify in any way the admirable conclusions arrived at by the Select Committee.
Secondly, if I had my way entirely, I would in one respect go against what the Select Committee said. I should like to reinstate the lock at Bathurst Basin. I know that the Select Committee said that this was unnecessary, and that may well be. All the same, I feel that the Floating Harbour would be more interesting with a way through in the middle into the New Cut, and it would be a pity just to preserve a dead end at Bathurst Basin, particularly in view of the fact that the Committee expressly condemned the dead end which the Corporation had intended to create at St. Philip's Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will probably tell your Lordships that maybe I am asking for something which is unreasonable, in that by opening the Totterdown Lock there is already a circular way round, and there is no point in making, as it were, a figure of eight. But I should have liked to see that; it would cost only about a quarter of a million pounds, which is a very small sum compared with the total that the Corporation are to spend.
I am prepared to admit that this is something the Select Committee did not think necessary, and I am also prepared to concede (I did not know it until this evening) that this comes within the provisions
118
of an attempt to extend the powers of a Private Bill, which is something that neither House can do. In your Lordships' House, or indeed in another place, the powers asked for in a Private Bill can be restricted, but they cannot be added to or extended. This I fully concede. Nevertheless, as I say, if it were entirely open to me, I should like to see the lock at the Bathurst Basin put back again. Although Parliament cannot do this, it may well be that Bristol Corporation may in time feel that from an amenity point of view it would be worth doing. I should like to leave that thought in the minds of members of the Corporation.
There is one other point which I feel would help to procure what I wanted in the first place, but which the Select Committee ruled out as being unnecessary; that is, that the prescribed dimensions of the craft should be slightly increased. The existing bridges across the Floating Harbour, with the exception of Prince Street Bridge, which swings, are 11 ft. above the water. The Corporation told the Select Committee that any future bridge to be built over the Floating Harbour would have a headroom of at least 11 ft. Why therefore limit craft of the "prescribed dimensions" to 9 ft.? There is no reason for this arbitrarily low figure and good reason for not having it. Sea-going cabin cruisers require more headroom than most little inland waterway craft. It seems to me a mistake to fix the height for bridges below what now exists or will exist. The same applies to the question of draft. Why limit the "prescribed dimensions" to 4 ft. 6in.—that is in Clause 4—when the present draft is already something like 20 ft.? It would cost very little more to dredge in years to come to 6 ft. 6 in. than to 4 ft. 6 in. Anyway, it will take a lifetime for the Floating Harbour to silt up to 6 ft. 6 in. The importance of good headroom as well as good draft is that it guarantees the sight of a variety of craft for the people of Bristol.
I said that I did not want to be greedy. Perhaps the three points to which I have referred were being greedy. The Petitioners have had a very great deal conceded to them, one might say almost all of what they asked; and they are entirely satisfied with the Bill as it now stands, with those very small exceptions.

119
I think my friends and I would agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we are satisfied with the Bill as amended. With that satisfaction and those very small points which I have added, which no doubt will be commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I commend this Bill to your Lordships and ask that it should be given a Third Reading.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, owing to the importance of this Bill and the interest disclosed on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the Committee felt that a Special Report should be made, and this is available to your Lordships. With hindsight, I think my noble friend's remark regarding a sketch to accompany the Report is valid, and I am sure that this will be noted for the future. I should like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their kind remarks regarding the Committee and also those who assisted in compiling the Report. A number of Petitioners withdrew, leaving one Petition jointly lodged by the Bristol Civic Society, the Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society, the Cabot Cruising Club and the South-Western Branch of the Inland Waterways Association.
The history of Bristol Docks goes back to the early days of the merchant adventurers, when there was a flourishing trade in tobacco, chocolate and copra. Since those days, Bristol has gradually turned its eyes more to industry rather than to maritime commerce, and the building of the docks at Avonmouth and Portishead sounded the knell for Bristol docks as a viable concern for oceangoing commercial ships. There was ample uncontested evidence to show that the losses in keeping the docks operational could no longer be considered as a commercial proposition. It was immediately evident to the Committee that the extinction of navigational rights for large ships after 1980 was in no way an issue in this Committee. The Corporation wished to make an exception in the case of social visits by tall ships, such as the training ship "Winston Churchill" and ships of the Royal Navy, which could enter via the Cumberland Basin.
As my noble friend has said, it is difficult to discuss the plans of the Corporation
120
without diagrams, but many of your Lordships will have a knowledge of Bristol and know that the River Avon runs South of the city in a canal called the New Cut, which, being tidal, is navigable at high tide but which at low tide is merely a trickle and hence has not been for many years of any value as a means of maritime transport. It is proposed in the Bill, and it is not contested by the Petitioners, that a barrage and lock should be constructed at the seaward end of the New Cut, which would ensure that occupants of pleasure craft who wished to by-pass Bristol would have a permanent access down to the Severn, subject to the tides on the Severn side of the barrage.
May I at this point explain that, as defined in the Bill, the Floating Harbour is kept at a static level by a lock at Cumberland Basin and that floating the New Cut will mean that the level of water will be maintained in spite of tidal differences which pertain at any one time. So far as the New Cut was concerned, the Committee felt that floating this would be a great advantage to the amenities of pleasure craft of the prescribed dimensions. Here may I say, in answer to one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me about the prescribed dimensions, that we had evidence from the Harbour Master that these dimensions were a safety factor in passing under some bridges and that it would be inadvisable, because of the tide, that they should be any higher. I am going back nine months now, but I think that was the explanation we had.
I do not propose to go in detail into the works to be done in the Floating Harbour, except to say that the clearance of the docks installations and the evidence as to the beautifying of the city appealed to the Committee and were not contested by the Petitioners. It would also appear that a fixed bridge across St. Augustine's Reach would assist to a great degree the traffic problem within the city, in the fact that it would help to clear traffic from Queen's Square and allow this to be converted into a pedestrian precinct, except for service roads adjacent to the houses.
Before continuing our journey through the Floating Harbour, I feel that I should say that there was apprehension by the Petitioners that the Corporation, on

121
extinguishing navigational rights, might consider filling in part of the harbour, to the detriment of pleasure craft. The Committee did not feel that this was a likely consideration, and in fact the Promoters tabled an Amendment to the Bill to ensure the right of way to pleasure craft. May I now follow the Floating Harbour through in an easterly direction, which brings me to St. Philip's Bridge. It was at this point that the Corporation proposed to terminate any movement of small craft. Beyond St. Philip's Bridge is St. Philip's Reach, which leads into two waterways, one going East and called the Feeder Canal and the other, the continuation of St. Philip's Reach, running South and joining the New Cut at Totterdown Lock, where at the present time there is no access for shipping into the New Cut.
Evidence was given regarding the Feeder Canal, and there could be no doubt that it was in bad repair and was in fact leaking. It was proposed in the Bill, and the Petitioners did not seriously contest this, that the Feeder Canal should be closed and filled in, so that a road-widening project could be brought into operation. The Committee concurred in this decision. It was at this stage that the Committee surmised that the continued navigation of St. Philip's Reach by pleasure craft and an entry into the New Cut were the main bone of contention in the Bill. It did not appear clear to the Committee what definite plans were visualised by the Corporation as to what they wished to do with this waterway, except that the extinguishing of all navigational rights would provide flexibility for the future planning of the road system of Bristol.
The Committee now felt that they should visit the site. They proceeded to Bristol on Monday evening, May 18, and spent the next day in the city. We should like to thank the Corporation for the excellent arrangements made for our comfort. We travelled by car and launch along the waterways of this beautiful city and got a good picture of the proposals in this Bill. The Committee sat again on Wednesday, May 20, and heard the final speeches of counsel for the Petitioners and for the Promoters. The Committee were not satisfied as to the technical position should they consider the retention
122
of St. Philip's Reach as a navigational channel for craft of the prescribed dimensions through Totterdown Lock. Counsel were therefore recalled and it was indicated to them that the Committee were minded to make this decision and required the assistance of both sides as to the technical position. The question was also put to counsel whether Work No. 5, being the entrance from the New Cut into the Floating Harbour through Bathurst Basin, would be required if the Committee decided to keep open St. Philip's Reach. Here may I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that in closing the Bathurst Basin the Committee felt that, having incurred rather a large expense in opening Totterdown Lock, we should then save the money on the entry into Bathurst Basin, and thus the overall amount of money spent on the whole project would be very little altered.
After a short adjournment for consideration, the Committee heard counsel on this subject and announced their opinion that the Bill should proceed with Amendments. The effect of the main Amendments is as follows. First, St. Philip's Reach is now included among the waterways which the Corporation will be statutorily required to keep open for craft of the prescribed dimensions. This means that the whole surface area of the existing Floating Harbour will remain as it is. The Corporation will now be empowered to close the Reach or to build a culvert at St. Philip's Bridge. Secondly, Totterdown Lock will be reopened so that boats will be able to pass from the New Cut into the Floating Harbour. This will provide an alternative way into the Harbour, instead of the present access through the Feeder Canal, which will disappear when the canal is closed.
The Bill, as amended, will ensure that the Floating Harbour is available as a through navigation in the future, even when the dock installations have gone after 1980. The Committee felt that in this way the main objectives of the Bill would be achieved and there would still be boat traffic passing through the heart of Bristol.
8.22 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what

123
has already been said, particularly because I was one of those who on Second Reading made what I think the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, still feels was a rather fierce speech. I am glad to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee, on this admirable Report. It certainly is one of the clearest Reports that we have had from a Select Committee. Unfortunately, we do not get many of them now.
I think the Report is valuable not only because it is so clear, but because of the conclusions to which the Committee came, after what was obviously a very careful consideration of the whole problem and a detailed inspection on the spot. I think it is a vindication of the method which we still use, although rather less frequently than in the past, on these matters in which amenity is in issue: it is a vindication of the Select Committee method of going about the business, because it means that a number of men of considerable experience and sensitivity bring detailed consideration to bear on matters of national importance. The result of this has been, I am sure, not only a much improved Bill but also a much improved situation, because the people of Bristol obviously feel that careful thought has been given to their problems. It is right that they should have this feeling as citizens of a very proud city. I feel also that the amenity interests over the whole country will feel a similar gratitude.
I approach the matter as one who has known Bristol for some time. It is a very fine city, one that holds its own as a matter of history and of beauty, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, emphasised, with many of the great historic ports and cities of Europe. It is not in the same class as the greatest capitals, but it is a town of really high value. It is from that point of view that I think this Report is so valuable, and the way it has been received in Bristol is greatly to be commended. We have not got all that we perhaps hoped to get—one seldom does. But we are getting a great deal. Not only is Bristol getting a great deal, but so also is England, because with a city like Bristol the interests of the nation as a whole have to be considered.
124
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it is a pity that the bridges are no longer to swing. I think that a timetable which would have obviated such continual interruption of traffic at the bridges as has occurred in the past would have been better. I am sorry that it may be difficult for the tall ships still to be seen from the City of Bristol. I remember, on the first occasion of a visit to Bristol, how surprised and gratified I was to see in the very middle of the city the mast of a tall ship. I had not realised at that stage that the magnificent Floating Harbour was there. It is one of the great engineering feats of possibly the greatest of our 19th century engineers, Brunel, and is certainly a living memory to his genius. I hope that Bristol will see its way to ensure that these tall ships will still be visible from the streets and squares of Bristol. But even if that cannot be done, I feel that what has been done represents a considerable contribution not only to the amenities of the city of Bristol itself, but to the increasingly valuable hobby of sailing small boats, not merely in our inland waterways but around our coasts. This is a spendid sport, and one that is, I am sure, contributing a great deal to the health and adventurous spirit of our young people, and also to the national historic welfare as a whole. I congratulate the Committee, and I am glad to know that this Bill is going through.
8.27 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I feel that we shall now send the Bill to another place with blessings. It seems to me that what we have done this evening is to demonstrate that the democratic process has worked and will be seen to have worked. Our Second Reading debate—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was quite right to say that I thought he was very fierce with me—is on record for people to see that he was very upset about what he felt were the provisions of the Bill. I am glad that he is happier now. This is how things should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a fuss. I am delighted that he should now receive some of the congratulations. He made a fuss and has been instrumental in preserving the whole of the Floating

125
Harbour. I do not want to be churlish, but I must say that the Promoters originally proposed to cut off only a small part of the Floating Harbour; now, of course, we are not going to cut off any. The Feeder Canal is a horrible place; it has not been saved, and I am glad about that.
I am not going to reply to Lord Henley's three points: that it should be a mandatory duty to swing the Cumberland Basin Bridges; that he wished it was possible to reinstate the lock from the new cutting to the Bathurst Basin; and that he would prefer the prescribed dimensions to be a little larger. He is quite right in thinking that to reinstate what was Work No. 5, which is now no longer in the Bill, would be an extension of powers, and I am advised that it would not be possible for one House to take out a power like that and for the other House to put it in again. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to whom we are very grateful for giving us a Sunday Times-like "Insight " as to how the Committee worked, was very interesting and fascinating. What he has said may be true in this case. He has removed the main bone of contention regarding St. Philip's Reach. Now I hope everybody will enjoy St. Philip's Reach, and will go and boat there. Some people may count how many people actually boat there, but that is neither here nor there at the moment. We shall have the New Cut, although nobody has been able to say what it will look like, which will now have the new barrage down at the Under-fall Yard, and the dam removed up at the other end, at Netham. The New Cut will no longer be a very utilitarian Victorian ditch—early Victorian, 1803—to take the tidal water. Instead of the very thick cocoa-like stuff which now comes in from the Bristol Channel—and which seems to us when the tide ebbs to leave only a little sewage—there will be river water. There will no longer be this thick "cocoa" coming in from the Bristol Channel. It is extremely thick, and you only have to look over the new suspension bridge to see how thick it can be. It will now be fresh water; it will now be the Avon coming down, and it will be navigable. The old constructed harbour originally was the course of the Avon and the Frome, and was then turned into an artificial harbour, with the Avon
126
diverted down the New Cut. Now the New Cut will be full of fresh water, fish and boats, and Lord Henley's children will be playing on the marina; the Floating Harbour will no longer have the commercial docks, and we shall really have a most beautiful centre to the city of Bristol. It has been rather expensive to provide all this amenity, but the expenditure has no doubt been right and proper in a great commercial city.
I anticipate from what I have heard this evening that this Bill is likely to proceed to another place, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed, and stayed late to do so tonight, and to put on record their appreciation of the work carried out by the Select Committee in the preparation of their Special Report.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SCOTTISH RENT LAWS
8.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Scottish rent laws could be so altered that tenants and private landlords can enter into a lease, or renew a lease for a contracted number of years with the rent officer acting as arbiter. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I would ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House on this my maiden speech, particularly as I am initiating a debate. This is, however, the fruit of two years' research.
My Lords, the subject matter of this question really applies to the whole of Britain and I am seeking the opinions of as wide a section of your Lordships' House as I can; but I must, because of the maze of Rent Acts and other Acts applying to rents in Scotland, limit my field to the rural areas of Scotland. I should like at this stage to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for introducing the consolidation of the Rent Acts in Scotland. I shall refer to the new consolidated Rent Act as the "1970 Act". From the first Rent Act of 1915 circumstances have changed, and legislation has been introduced which gives the tenant either complete security of tenure or no security at all.
Let me assure your Lordships that, because of the rent laws in private property, there are people who are unable to get accommodation when there are, close to them, cottages standing empty. There are people who are tenants living in one half of a county and working in another part of that county who have no opportunity whatever of getting accommodation nearer to their work; they are prisoners in their houses. There are landlords who would like to have a rented house back in hand for an employee or a relative, or even for themselves, but who have no hope of ever getting their house back in hand.
Let me illustrate this statement, but first let me remind those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with all the implications of the Rent Acts that many of the sections, particularly those giving security of tenure, do not apply to houses or fiats owned by a local authority, the Scottish Special Housing Association, a New Town Development Corporation, or other housing associations, as well as a few specific cases where a house is in private ownership. The procedure for a person wishing a local authority house is that he must be domiciled in that authority's area, or employed in that area—in most cases for not less than one year—before his name can be entered on the waiting list. Even after his name has been entered on the list, a further waiting period of two years may be involved.
My Lords, I should like you to consider what you would have done if you had been in my position a year ago. I do not want to bring personal experiences into your Lordships' House, but I have found no better example. A married man, with two young children, had been living in England for some years and very much wanted to move back to Scotland. He had been offered an ordinary job in my county, but as he had not previously lived in that area he was not eligible to be considered for a local authority house until he had lived there for one year; and then after his name was on the housing list he would probably have to wait at least a further two years. I had a house which I wanted to reserve for a maintenance worker when my present maintenance worker retired, and I was prepared to let this family
128
have this house during the intervening period.
I have taken a serious and expensive risk, possibly ending in court. If I entered into a contracted lease for four years (which is the maximum period of time I can spare that house), the tenant would have every right at the end of that period, under the Rent Acts, to convert that contracted tenancy to a regulated tenancy which would provide not only him with complete security for the rest of his lifetime, but his children as well. If I transfer the registration of the rates to his name then I have acknowledged him as tenant, and if I had to take him to court to regain possession, the court would evict him only if it was satisfied that I was suffering the greater hardship. I could seek no protection under Section 14 of the 1965 Rent Act for owner/occupiers, because I had not actually lived in the house; nor under Section 16, because the person I wanted the house for was not covered by the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949.
I cannot afford to let that man live there both rent-free and rates-free, but again I must be careful. The court would almost automatically evict him under Section 12(7) of the 1920 Rent Act, or Section 2 of the proposed 1970 Act, if I did not charge him a rent of more than two-thirds of the rateable value that was applicable in 1965—which means that, to safeguard myself, the maximum contribution towards the rates payable by this tenant is only £8, whereas the present rateable value is £30. So he is not only living rent-free, but is contributing only about one-third of the rates.
My Lords, would you in similar circumstances have let this family have this House? I had not the heart to see that family living in "digs", or being prevented from returning to Scotland. But I may still end up in court when I want that house back in hand.
Next I should like your Lordships to consider the case of a tenant being a prisoner in his own house. In most counties, and certainly in my own, an engaged couple are not considered eligible to have their names entered on the house waiting-list for a local authority house, and can enter their name only after they are married. There is a great demand for two-apartment houses, so they usually have to wait three years. I provided such

129
a couple with a cottage—and there are in rural Scotland a number of two-apartment cottages at present standing empty. The husband has to travel 15 miles to his work, almost to the other end of the county. If he became a statutory tenant he would not then be considered for a local authority house, because most authorities would regard him as adequately housed; whereas, if he had been a council tenant, he could have put his name on a transfer list for another part of that county closer to his work. The result is that he does not want to become a regulated tenant; and it was agreed between us that no rent should be paid.
How nice it would have been if he and I could have entered into a contract for a lease of three years, with a rent fixed by the rent officer. He would then have been living under a restricted tenancy, which would not have excluded him from a council house, and I should have been reimbursed in rent and rates. Nothing in any of the Rent Acts allows us to do this with any security to me. So this is a case where a private tenant can so easily become a prisoner in his house. Yet I know of a man who sold his house, moved into rooms, demanded a council house and got a council house. At present there are almost no facilities enabling a council tenant living in one burgh to seek a council house in another burgh, and an applicant for a local authority house is forbidden by most authorities to have his name on any other burgh or county housing list.
The next case I should like your Lordships to consider is that of a house owner. It is quite common for headmasters or janitors of local authority schools to be compelled to live in a school house, or for employees in bridge building firms or other public works contractors to live in other areas than they would eventually like to retire in. I shall assume that these people would like to retire to Ayrshire. I know quite a number of contractors who buy and sell houses fairly regularly as they move from contract to contract around the country, and it is not uncommon for a head teacher or a janitor to transfer from one school to another. A headmaster or a contractor, or such person not domiciled in any one area, is usually earning a good salary and could easily, but for the
130
rent laws, obtain a mortgage while he is working, to build or buy a house for his future requirements; but, as we all know, it is very difficult for a person to obtain a mortgage after he is retired. Many of these people have said to me how much they would like to buy or build a house for their eventual retirement and let it for the period of years that they did not require it.
In the case of a headmaster, who would be paying an ordinary rent for a school house and would be automatically evicted if he left his job, if he had bought or built his house in Ayrshire, and let it, he might on the grounds of hardship persuade the court to allow him to gain possession of his house back again. But in the case of a contractor who might have had a house in Bedfordshire, the courts, if they followed the wording of the Rent Act, would not grant him possession of his house in Ayrshire, on the grounds that he already possessed a house. So, what happens? The headmaster who possesses, as many do, a house of his own, if it is mortgaged has to sell it, because the mortgagors would not allow him to let it, and when he retires he gets a council house from the last authority he worked for. The contractor also sells his house if he is keen to move to Ayrshire, then moves into rooms for the domiciliary period, and gets a council house.
Here, my Lords, is a case where two families who might have been able to rent a house for possibly 15 years are being deprived of accommodation. But, what is worse, here are two families retiring into council property who should be living in their own homes. Even under the Consolidated Rent Act 1970, in Schedule 3, case 12, possession of a manse or vicarage can be obtained only by a minister of religion; but this section does not cover the case of anybody else who is necessary for the efficient running of the church. Yet quite recently a gravedigger employed by a local authority was sacked and evicted from his house, although he was paying a rent well over the gross annual value.
Having criticised the Rent Acts, I shall now describe how I should like to have them improved in a way which would give the tenant security of tenure, but would also make it possible for private

131
lairds to rent their property without the serious pitfalls and hardships which exist at present. This is, briefly, that a clause should be inserted into the Rent Acts to allow a tenant and landlord to enter into a lease, or renew a lease, for a contracted number of years without resultant further security of tenure. It might read something like this:
"A tenant and landlord shall be permitted to enter into or renew a lease for a contracted number of years, which shall be registered with the rent officer, under the following conditions:

(i) In the case of a new lease that lease shall be for a period of not less than two years.

(ii) In the case of an existing regulated tenancy for the remaining number of years of that lease, or 14 years, whichever is the greater period of years, and if at the end of the contracted or existing tenancy the tenant will then he over 65 years old the lease shall be extended for the tenant's lifetime only.

(iii) If an improvement grant has been obtained through either a local authority or other Government approved scheme which was contributed to equally by the tenant and landlord, such a contracted lease shall be for a period of not less than 14 years from the date when the grant was paid and again if the tenant will be over 65 years old at the end of this contracted lease, this contracted lease shall be extended for the rest of the tenant's lifetime.

(iv) If the tenant is at present or at any future period carrying out and paying for all repairs, then no such terminating contract shall be permitted.

(v) Provided that in the case of the tenant the lease shall not be extended beyond the contracted number of years without permission being given in writing from the landlord, but that the tenant may give notice to quit at any time under the conditions already existing in the Rent Acts."

If your Lordships accept my recommendations, I am sure that many estate owners in Scotland would then allow their tenant farmers to sub-let any of the farm cottages under a contracted lease. But at present many of the tenant farmers are not permitted to sub-let any of their cottages, and many of these cottages are falling into disrepair, because only the landlord is covered by Section 16 of the Rent Act 1965, and the position of the tenant farmer was not very clear until case 15 of Schedule III of the Consolidated Rent Act 1970 made this position clear.
Some noble Lords may feel that my proposals defeat the purpose of providing
132
a tenant with security of tenure, and that people should not be allowed to contract out of the law. In this case I hope that I have illustrated how I should like people to contract into the law, because at present the rent laws either give the tenant complete security of tenure or no security at all, and, as I have already stated, a local authority or housing association is expressly excluded from these Acts and has the power to move or evict tenants. A private landlord has no such powers, and I am not asking that he should, except at the expiry of the regulated contract period.
In the cases I have illustrated I am not thinking of the man who can afford to buy his house. I am thinking of the ordinary man who does not have much money behind him and who can only afford to rent a house. I am also thinking of the man who would like to buy or build a house in the area in which he would eventually like to retire but who cannot get a mortgage because he will not be moving into the property immediately, and who cannot let the house during the period that he does not require it, because of the rent laws.
Let me put this whole matter into a nutshell. If a clause could be inserted into the Rent Acts whereby a willing landlord and a willing tenant could agree to enter into a lease for a contracted period of years, with the rent officer acting as arbiter, I am certain that no rural cottages would remain vacant and that Her Majesty's Government would, by this one clause, do more to prevent the depopulation of rural Scotland and the Highlands than any other thing I can suggest. I thank your Lordships for listening to this speech.
8.53 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is the pleasing custom of your Lordships' House that a succeeding speaker should regard it as his first duty to congratulate the maker of a maiden speech, no matter what he may think of the content of that speech. I am certain that there must have been occasions in the past when this weighed rather heavily on the consciences of some people. The fact that I do not agree with what the noble Earl has said and the remedy he proposes does not in any way detract from the pleasure I have had in listening to him,

133
and I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that it has indeed been a delight to listen to a speech resulting from a great deal of hard study and an attempt to find a solution to a problem which undoubtedly exists.
The fact that I do not agree with the noble Earl's solution does not mean that I differ from him in the facts which he has placed before your Lordships. It is undoubtedly the case that there are houses in the country parts of Scotland which are difficult to let because of the circumstances which the noble Earl has recounted. However, in a country where still the majority of people live in rented accommodation, the houses which are standing empty in rural parts form a very small minority of the total number of houses available for renting in Scotland. If one knew for certain that the landlords of Scotland were all animated by the same kindly thoughts as the noble Earl has given voice to this evening, then we could take the kind of risks that he suggests; but it is a fact of life that many of the properties in Scotland are not in the possession of landlords like the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In fact, in many cases they are not in the possession of individuals at all but are in the possession of companies whose desire it is to maximise the profit which they can get from this perfectly legitimate commercial enterprise, but one which is not necessarily in the interests of their existing or their would-be tenants.
I do not know that we ever suffered from the worst aspects of the letting of property that came to be known in this part of the world as "Rachmanism", but we did have some landlords who approached that kind of attitude, and there are some property companies in Scotland whose reputation is perhaps not of the best. They may be in the minority, but unfortunately in some of these cases they own large numbers of houses. If we were to accept the solution put forward by the noble Earl, it would not be merely the kindly disposed who would take advantage of it. In fact, it would be an open door to the abandonment of the Rent Acts entirely so far as these people were concerned.
None of these people, when giving a new tenancy, would contemplate for one moment entering into a tenancy which
134
would become a regulated tenancy. Every one of these houses would be let on a lease for a period of two years, three years, five years—whatever it might be—and at the end of that time, no matter how great the need of the tenant, no matter how great the difficulty he might have in getting alternative accommodation, he would have no right to remain in the house, and no court could, or would, give him protection in those circumstances. So what the noble Earl suggests would be to remove the undoubted difficulty of—I would go so far as to say remove the undoubted injustice which is being done to—a small minority of people, by placing at hazard a very large number of people, particularly in our cities where housing is still in short supply, where many people are still living in houses totally unfit for habitation. Their chances of getting not merely a council house but a decent house in private ownership would be very much diminished it anything of this kind were done.
I do not for one moment expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, will be able to give any assurances to the noble Earl that amendment of the law along these lines could be forthcoming. I am certain that if she does she will then have a battle on her hands very reminiscent of the battle over the Rent Acts in the 1950s, and I am sure that the Government have enough trouble on their plate at the present time without searching the highways and byways of Scotland for new ways of getting more. However, in conclusion, I would say to the noble Earl that he is to be congratulated on having applied so much thought to this subject. If it is the view of your Lordships generally, as it is mine, that he has come up with the wrong solution, he should not be dismayed, but perhaps look around and try to find another solution which does not transfer the difficulties to a much greater number of people in other parts of the country. Whether he does so or not, I hope that having ventured into speaking in your Lordships' House and having done so in the difficult way of asking this Unstarred Question, he will be encouraged by the reception which we have given him, and will be led to favour us frequently in future with his contributions.
8.59 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on his maiden speech; and in particular I would congratulate him on the enormous amount of research into which he has quite clearly gone in what is a very difficult and complex branch of the law. Indeed, I think it is a subject that often defeats many professional lawyers, and it is for that reason that I was particularly grateful that he was good enough to send me a copy of his speech. I would say to him—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hughes has said—that I am sure the whole House will be grateful to him for having gone into this subject, which affects so many people so intimately, so carefully, with all his knowledge, as I understand it, of eight years on his own County Council and on the housing committee. That knowledge showed through all his speech and, as I say, I am sure the House as a whole will be grateful to him and will wish to consider more carefully the various questions which he has raised to-day.
I think the noble Earl has chosen rather a good time to make his maiden speech, because, as your Lordships know, a Bill consolidating the Rent Acts for Scotland is now before your Lordships' House, and in addition a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Francis, which was established by the previous Government to review the workings of the Rent Act 1965, has just reported to Ministers, and the Report will be published in about a month. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that in considering this Report, we will take very carefully into account the various matters of great concern which he has raised.
His speech, of course, had one clear purpose: to ensure that houses now standing empty can be used. The tenor of the noble Earl's argument has been that the Rent Acts, in seeking to give security to tenants, had gone too far, and that some amendment should be made to meet the particular problem which he detailed with such care. Perhaps I should first make clear to whom the Rent Acts apply. Your Lordships will recall that they apply to houses owned by the nationalised industries in exactly the same way as they apply to houses owned by
136
private landlords. They do not, however, apply to houses owned by local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, the New Town Development Corporations or housing associations. In Scotland, however, no tenant, whoever his landlord may be, can be evicted without a court order. This, I am proud to say, has been the law of Scotland since 1555. It applies to local authorities and to the S.S.H.A., as to any other landlord. Of course, the sheriff is bound to grant an order for possession, provided that the local authority has served the proper notice to quit. Perhaps I should just say, in passing, that the English came into line only in 1965, over 400 years later.
The Rent Acts have always had two interlinked functions: to control increases in rents and to give tenants security of tenure. The purpose of giving tenants security of tenure is to make effective the limitations of rents and to prevent the landlord from avoiding rent restriction by evicting the tenant. As the noble Earl has pointed out, one of the effects of security of tenure for the tenant is to discourage landlords from letting houses which otherwise would become available. The problem is without doubt a very real one, and the difficulty is to find a right balance. The object must be, in the country as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has pointed out, to prevent tenants from being unreasonably evicted while at the same time enabling landlords to obtain possession of their own houses.
The noble Earl suggests that a landlord and tenant should be able to enter into a contract for a lease for a definite period, with the rent officer acting as arbiter. There is nothing in the present laws to prevent contractual tenancy when the tenant eventually leaves at the end of the agreed period. But, of course, the problem arises if the tenant refuses to leave and then becomes a statutory tenant, with security for himself, his widow and children. If an amendment on the lines suggested by the noble Earl were made to the Rent Acts, it would in effect enable people to contract out of the Rent Acts; and it would clearly be very difficult to draft an amendment that would at the same time give adequate protection to tenants. It is therefore for this reason, and because we have to consider the laws as they affect the whole country, not only the rural areas but also

137
the industrial areas, that I am afraid I cannot say to-night that the Government have considered what really would be a major change in the Rent Acts and one that would affect security of tenure.
The noble Earl has done us all a service, because he has given the House an opportunity to give their opinion on the subject, and perhaps read this debate at leisure and consider it again. The noble Earl also mentioned the very important problem of a house that is bought or built by a man for his own occupation after retirement, and who cannot gain possession of it if he has let it without first having lived in it himself. When the Rent Act 1965 was going through Parliament, this matter was extensively debated in both Houses, and your Lordships inserted a clause to allow such a house to be repossessed when required. That clause was removed in another place, but the Government of the day expressed considerable sympathy with its object. In the debate in your Lordships' House the late Lord Mitchison said that the then Government had made great efforts to find a formula but had failed. I can assure the noble Earl that we will certainly look at this problem again and, difficult though it is, see whether it is possible to devise a way of meeting the problem which he has raised.
The noble Earl also asked about estate houses, and whether landlords could not be put in the same position in relation to estate houses for maintenance workers as they are now in relation to houses for agricultural workers. Under Section 16
138
of the Rent Act 1965, an agricultural cottage let to someone other than an agricultural worker can be recovered when it is required for such a worker, provided that the tenant has been given notice that this may happen. The Government will certainly examine the noble Earl's suggestion that the definition of an agricultural worker might include other estate workers such as those engaged on maintenance.
The noble Earl mentioned restrictions on the allocation of local authority houses, but there is nothing in the Rent Acts or in the Housing Acts, or in any directions of Government, which prevents a local authority from providing houses for those people he mentioned if they wish to do so. The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, in their report called Allocating Council Houses recommended strongly that residential qualification requirements should be abolished and that the current housing need in each individual case should be the overriding criterion in allocations.
The noble Earl has given us an opportunity to consider some very important questions. I should like to say that I am grateful to him for that opportunity and for the fair way in which he has addressed himself to a very difficult and what can be a very politically controversial subject. I would only add that we shall study carefully all that he has said, and that we all hope that it will not be long before we hear from him again.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.