Sitting of 10 February 1971

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

  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AVIATION SUPPLY

    European Launcher Development Organisation
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will seek to make an official visit to the European Launcher Development Organisation headquarters in Paris.
    The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I have no present plans to visit the E.L.D.O. Headquarters in Paris.
    Mr. Dalyell: What constructive proposals do the Government have as a reaction to the Americans' offer of the post-Apollo programme, particularly in relation to Phase C?
    Mr. Corfield: There is a team in the United States, in which the United Kingdom is taking part, to study the availability of launchers. The other matter is under consideration, and I will make a statement as soon as possible.

    Concorde
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Concorde supersonic airliner.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde flight test development programme.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde aircraft.
    Mr. Corfield: The two Concorde prototypes have now completed nearly 400 hours of flight testing, including tests at Concorde's cruising speed of twice the speed of sound. The results of these tests are now being assessed. About £500 million has been spent on development so far.
    Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, bearing in mind that the Concorde is powered with Rolls-Royce engines, its commercial future has been gravely prejudiced by the Government's reluctance to renegotiate the contract to supply the Rolls-Royce engines for the Lockheed TriStar, and also by the disgraceful way in which the right hon. Gentleman himself knocked Rolls-Royce engines in his speech on Monday?
    Mr. Corfield: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's proposition. It is thoroughly mischievous to suggest that this will happen. I am confident that the American airlines will judge Concorde on its commercial aspects. With regard to the other matter, if hon. Gentlemen will re-read the context in which I made the remark that the engine was behind, they will realise that it applied solely to time. They know that delay has destroyed the best technical advances, such as Comet, but if they like to make political capital out of a grave national disaster like this, it is up to them. I propose to give the House as honest an assessment as I can of what I believe are the prospects.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, so far from the commercial prospects being prejudiced, the flight test development so far has given the British aircraft industry every indication that it has a product which it can sell to the airlines? There have been 60 hours of supersonic speeds and six to eight hours at more than Mach 2.
    Mr. Corfield: I agree that the flight tests have proved very satisfactory, and

    497
    certainly the French reactions to the Rolls-Royce engine in no way confirm the fears expressed from the other side of the House.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest concern would be caused if the aircraft were to continue in production with insufficient orders, allowing it to trickle on neither making a profit nor producing enough to offset the money spent on it? Leaving aside the money already spent, what estimate has the Minister made of the numbers of aircraft required to be sold to break even?
    Mr. Corfield: I have explained to the House and to the hon. Gentleman in particular on a number of occasions that I am having a complete review with my French colleague in March to study the commercial prospects. It is on that review and the prospects that the future depends. As for the number, the answer is approximately 100.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that, in addition to his remarks about Concorde, its sales prospects will not be determined by whether or not the Americans or anyone else think that we are nice chaps, but by the speed with which B.O.A.C. and Air France place orders for the aeroplane? Will he continue to do all he can to encourage those companies to convert their interest into a firm order for Concorde?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course, the attitude of B.O.A.C. and Air France is very important.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware, with reference to the point he made in answer to the first supplementary question, that it was not only his attack upon the RB211 but his slighting reference to the 1011 compared with its competitor in the United States that has caused grave damage and made the position worse. Does he agree, too, that the credibility of Rolls-Royce has been affected and prejudiced by the decision on the RB211 and that this may affect Concorde? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make political representations at the highest level in New York State and in Washington on the noise question, which could be the decisive issue in the end?
    Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I made no damaging remarks about the Lockheed 1011, except to indicate that the DC10 was clearly getting more orders.
    I am in very close touch on the matter of the noise level, and I saw Lord Cromer about the noise problem before he left.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the reduction of lateral noise and smoke pollution in Concorde.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price): It is a design objective of the Concorde programme that its engine noise on entry into service should be no greater than that of existing subsonic jet aircraft. Smoke emission is expected to be generally less than that of current large jet aircraft.
    Mr. Huckfield: Will not even newer versions of current subsonic aeroplanes have to reduce their noise levels under the new regulations? Will Concorde be able to meet the new regulations?
    Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman is right about subsonic aircraft, but he knows that no regulations for supersonic aircraft have yet been proposed. Discussions have been proceeding.
    Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the State Assembly of New York is now having hearings through its Health Committee? Will the Government submit evidence to the committee and send a senior official or a Minister to try to satisfy the committee on the noise aspects of Concorde's operations?
    Mr. Price: I should like to think about the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what recent discussions his Department has had with airport authorities in the United States of America concerning the operation of Concorde into and out of United States airports.
    Mr. David Price: This question was most recently discussed between British and French officials and the Port of New York Authority at the end of October

    499
    last year. We are continuing to keep in close touch with developments in this field.
    Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware of the evidence which I submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry about discussions held with the City of New York authorities some six months ago on this whole question and what the attitude of the City of New York would be towards the Concorde? Will he take most seriously the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on an earlier Question about the need to involve ourselves as soon as possible in direct discussions with the New York authorities on the whole question of Concorde and noise levels?
    Mr. Price: Yes, Sir; I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Assemblyman Stein, evidently a key figure in the New York Assembly, will arrive here this week? Will he arrange for Mr. Stein to visit Farnborough so that the presentation on noise suppression which can be given is given to him and, through him, made available to the State Assembly?
    Mr. Price: We are thinking along those lines. Perhaps I might have a word with the right hon. Gentleman after Questions.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of his Department's activities with those of the French Government regarding the development of the Concorde programme.
    Mr. Corfield: The development and production of Concorde is a joint programme, and there is very close coordination, at every level, between the work of my Department and that of the French authorities.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but, again on the question of negotiations and discussions with the Americans, will he ensure that we are in a much stronger position by being associated with the French Government than we should be if we were on our own, and will he, please, ensure that the British and French Governments jointly leave the American Government in no doubt that neither of our Governments would be prepared to tolerate bogus environment
    500
    arguments put up to prevent Concorde from landing at United States airports?
    Mr. Corfield: These are matters for very serious consideration, but I do not think that we can dictate to the United States what we are prepared to tolerate.
    Mr. Benn: But when Lord Carrington visits the United States to discuss with the Government the Rolls-Royce position, will he also raise with Mr. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, and other Ministers the political importance to this country of not having Concorde endangered by a decision on environmental grounds?
    Mr. Corfield: I have no doubt that Mr. Volpe is fully seized of these considerations, but I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. and noble Friend.

    Harrier VTOL Aircraft
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the development and sales of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft and if he will indicate what arrangements are being made for its manufacture and sale with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation of the United States of America.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the supply of Harrier aircraft to the United States Marine Corps.
    Mr. Corfield: Development of the aircraft as an operational weapons system is now substantially completed. The United States Marine Corps has ordered 30 aircraft for delivery in 1971 and 1972 and has authorised orders for long-dated materials for a further 30 aircraft for delivery in 1973. Other countries are showing considerable interest. Hawker Siddeley Aviation has negotiated with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the manufacture of Harriers in the U.S.A. but the 30 aircraft so far ordered are being produced in this country.
    Mr. Cronin: Although, obviously, there are some advantages in using the commercial sales organisation and other facilities in McDonnell Douglas, will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can

    501
    to ensure that the Harriers are manufactured as far as possible by a British company?
    Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that this is a question for the decision of the American Government. It is, clearly, preferable to us that the Harriers should be manufactured in this country.
    Mr. Wall: To what extent are future major orders tied up with manufacture in the United States? Do we expect to make any sales to the United States Navy as opposed to the Marine Corps?
    Mr. Corfield: At the moment there is no tie-up as my hon. Friend suggests. I expect that if the United States Navy or Army reproduces these orders, the United States Government will wish to consider their attitude towards manufacture in the United States.
    Mr. McMaster: What pressure is my right hon. Friend bringing to bear on the Royal Navy to order versions of the Harrier for use by the Royal Navy with its carriers?
    Mr. Corfield: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Engine Noise (Research)
    Mr. Rostasked the Minister of Aviation Supply how much Government expenditure has been incurred in each of the past three years to help finance research into the development of quieter jet engines; and whether he will make a policy statement.
    Mr. David Price: Research into engine noise in the years 1967–68, 1968–69 and 1969–70 has cost £338,000, £523,800 and £857,000 respectively. But other work on aircraft noise reduction brings the totals up to higher figures, and there has also been some private expenditure by the manufacturers.
    Mr. Rost: Does my hon. Friend agree that the research work which has been undertaken by Rolls-Royce on its own account in recent years has been considerable, and that, as a result of this work, it has achieved a world lead in the development of quieter engines, and, in particular, that the RB211 has produced a
    502
    major technical breakthrough in this regard? Will this be considered in the renegotiation?
    Mr. Price: Most certainly. On the general point, most of this work has been done at Pyestock but quite a lot has been on contracts from the Department to Rolls-Royce.

    Jaguar Aircraft
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Jaguar flight test development programme.
    Mr. David Price: Seven prototypes of the aircraft have flown, and the eighth is due to fly this summer. Despite the loss of EO1, progress is well up to expectation.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that progress is more than up to expectation in terms of payload range and that in terms of utilisation of prototypes the rate of flying has been exceptional? This is a product powered by Rolls-Royce engines and manufactured by British and French industry in which we can all justly take pride.
    Mr. Price: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting, too, that the development costs of the Jaguar programme have been held very close to the original estimates.

    Rolls-Royce Limited
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he expects to receive the report of the accountants investigating the financial position of Rolls-Royce.
    Mr. Corfield: To a large extent, this has been overtaken by events, but in the Government's assessment of the position, Messrs. Cooper Bros' preliminary assessment was, of course, of considerable assistance.
    Mr. Sheldon: In the Minister's reply to my intervention on Monday, he was courteous enough to say that the reason why he did not intervene in the negotiations with Lockheed was that there might be a contravention of Section 332 of the Companies Act. Is the Minister seriously saying that the reason why he did not try

    503
    to renegotiate the Lockheed contract and so save the firm of Rolls-Royce in a compromise settlement was that it might be interpreted as a contravention of Section 332—as an attempt to defraud the creditors of Rolls-Royce?
    Mr. Corfield: There is no question of defrauding the creditors. As I sought to explain before, the situation was that the time was excessively short because the Rolls-Royce decision was made when it was, as I think I put it, right up against it from the point of view of meeting its liabilities. Within that time, we did our best, and we got in touch with the United States Government and with Lockheed.
    Dr. Gilbert: Can the Minister say anything about the position of the unsecured creditors of Rolls-Royce, particularly the sub-contractors and suppliers? Will they be left in the same position as Lockheed? Or, if not, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose under our bankruptcy laws to arrange to discriminate in favour of unsecured creditors of United Kingdom domicile and Lockheed? If the sub-contractors go there is no point in trying to save Rolls-Royce itself, as I am sure the Minister agrees.
    Mr. Corfield: These are matters for the Receiver.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether the independent accountants who are currently investigating the affairs of the Rolls-Royce Company Limited at the request of Her Majesty's Government will be authorised to investigate the fulfilment of their obligations to minority shareholders by the management of this company between June, 1968 and November, 1970, with particular reference to their obligations under Section 165(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1948; and whether the accountants will be authorised to publish reports on such matters if they so desire.
    Mr. Corfield: I think this matter is now best left to the inquiry under the Companies Act that the Board of Rolls-Royce has proposed. The report will be published.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the company's announcement that it
    504
    is to call for the appointment of inspectors. In view of the vital importance of the RB211 in destroying the value of investors' shareholdings in this company and the extent of the involvement of the Ministry of Technology and the I.R.C. in that contract, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the inspectors will be empowered to investigate not only the conduct of the board towards its shareholders but also the extent to which that conduct may or may not have been influenced by the Ministry of Technology or the I.R.C.?
    Mr. Corfield: As I understand it, the powers of the inspectors under the Act are very wide indeed, certainly wide enough to cover all the matters my hon. Friend has in mind, and wide enough for them to go in as much detail as they regard as necessary into any one aspect.
    Mr. Molloy: Would the Minister be prepared new, with the benefit of Monday's debate, to make a recommendation to his right hon. and hon. Friends that the Bill which is to be debated tomorrow should be amended so that full public ownership of Rolls-Royce should take place?
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the position of the suppliers for the RB211 and other existing engines? Their position is absolutely crucial, as I am sure my right hon. Friend realises, and they would be very grateful if any indication of the Government's attitude could be given as soon as possible.
    Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the anxieties, but I am not in any position to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has the Department had any official approach from Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and T.W.A. about continuing the RB211 as mentioned in this morning's Press?
    Mr. Corfield: Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what financial assistance his Department is giving to Rolls-Royce in the development of vertical lift engines.
    Mr. David Price: The Department has supported the RB162 lift engine, to which the French and German Governments also contributed. In addition, the XJ99 experimental military engine was developed in conjunction with the Americans.
    Other projects are under consideration.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: May we have an assurance that the Government will now put even more priority behind this research, in view of the importance of these engines to virtually every Western European vertical take-off project and because of their importance for recouping the finances of Rolls-Royce? Further, will my hon. Friend give particular support to the carbon fibre industry since the carbon fibre blades are crucial to these engines?
    Mr. Price: I had the honour last week of opening the first International Carbon Fibre Conference, when I said that Her Majesty's Government were giving substantial support across the board to the development of carbon fibres. On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his phraseology? He said that the Government had supported the RB162. Will he now say that the Government will continue to support the RB162?
    Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman knows that we shall be discussing all this tomorrow.
    Mr. William Rodgersasked the Minister of Aviation Supply why the contracted details of the agreement with Rolls-Royce (Bristol Engine Division) for the further development of the Olympus 593 engine are confidential.
    Mr. Corfield: The negotiation of commercial contracts is conducted in confidence between the parties concerned, and it would not, therefore, be proper for the details of these contracts to be given.
    Mr. Rodgers: That is a totally unsatisfactory reply, because it says precisely nothing. Surely one of the lessons out of the many emerging from the unhappy story of the RB211 is that more information should be freely available, particularly
    506
    to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman have second thoughts?
    Mr. Corfield: The answer says almost exactly what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said on 7th March, 1968. I appreciate that saying nothing is more characteristic of him than of me, but that is the case.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what undertakings were sought from the President of the United States of America on Tuesday, 2nd February, or Wednesday, 3rd February, relating to a joint effort by the British and American Governments to save the RB211 project and the Lockheed Tristar; and what answer was received.
    Mr. Corfield: No undertakings were sought or given on either side. Both Governments agreed that the firms should discuss the problem first.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply, like his speech on Monday, will be received with dismay in the Derby area? Why were no satisfactory undertakings sought from the American Administration or the Lockheed Corporation immediately Lord Cole told the Government on 26th January what the Rolls-Royce position was?
    Mr. Corfield: It was a question not of seeking undertakings at once but of putting those people in the picture and giving them some time to consider the situation. That is now going on.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the Minister's view, is the project worth saving?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, I think it is.
    Mr. Barnett: As the Minister presumably would wish to do something to restore some of the lost reputation of Britain, would he at least give the House an assurance that he has not ruled out the possibility of avoiding a liquidation by one of the several options still open?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, I can give that assurance.
    Mr. Jay: Did the Government approach the American authorities to try to find a satisfactory solution before agreeing to the appointment of a Receiver?
    Mr. Corfield: It was not a question of the Government's agreeing. I am sure

    507
    that the right hon. Gentleman knows, as an ex-President of the Board of Trade, that this is a matter where the law takes its course. We were left with a very small amount of time, and we did our best to make the maximum use of it.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is his estimate of the total number of redundancies directly involved in the immediate cessation of work on the RB211 engine by Rolls-Royce Ltd.
    Mr. Corfield: There would be very substantial redundancies. But I do not think that I should anticipate the decision on the RB211 nor the outcome of discussions between the Receiver, the staff and the unions.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is not the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, telling the House that the number of redundancies consequent on the cancellation of the project was not calculated when the Government were doing their costing on the full effects of the cancellation? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be honest with the House on what the full effects and the numbers involved will be?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course these things were taken into consideration, but the plain fact is that the discussions on whether the RB211 can continue are still going on.
    Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many suppliers and subcontractors in the Derby area face bankruptcy, and that the redundancies will be considerably increased unless we can have an assurance that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this very serious situation?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course I am aware of the problem. but I cannot add to what I have said in answer to a previous Question; namely, that the matter is in the hands of the Receiver.
    Mr. William Rodgers: In view of the danger of redundancies because of the continuing uncertainties about the whole future of the company, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the Receiver said yesterday, that those who might wish to continue commercial relations with Rolls-Royce for supplies other than for the RB211 may do so certain in
    508
    the knowledge that they will not commit themselves to further liabilities?
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think that it is for me to confirm or otherwise the Receiver's instructions.

    Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. William Rodgersasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further progress has been made in the multi-rôle combat aircraft development programme; and if he will make a statement on the anticipated total of research and development costs.
    Mr. Corfield: As I stated in reply to a similar Question on 20th January, the first major phase of development is now under way on a tripartite basis. I have nothing to add to the Minister of State for Defence's Statement on 22nd July, 1970, concerning the research and development costs.—[Vol. 809, c. 1050. Vol. 804, c. 555–8.]
    Mr. Rodgers: The House will be glad to know that progress is being made and that importance is attached to this programme, but does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that a year ago he was pressing strongly for full publication of the costs involved in the programme, including the United Kingdom's share? Has he now changed his mind about publication, or, if not, can he give the House the figures?
    Mr. Corfield: The figure which was given is £250 million for the first phase, up to the first check point. I have no wish to hide anything, but I do not think that I can go further at this point. At present, the first stage is looking ahead to see what happens at the next stage.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether design and management responsibility in the multi-rôle combat aircraft project is in direct relationship to the participating Government's financial investment.
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend deny a rumour that the West Germans are providing quite a large stake of the share which the Italians are purporting to put up in their 15 per cent. shareholding? If that be true, does it

    509
    not give the West Germans a leading position in the consortium, with all the attendant benefits?
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir; there is no question of the West Germans procuring for themselves a leading position by a device of that sort.

    Short SC1 VTOL Aircraft
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what evaluation studies are being undertaken of the Short SC1 vertical take-off and landing aircraft; what results have been obtained; and if he will make a statement on future plans for this aircraft.
    Mr. David Price: It has never been the intention to develop the SC1 for operational use, but the fundamental knowledge gained from the research programme has contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the evaluation, design and operation of both military and vicil V/STOL aircraft. A two-year research programme has recently begun on flight control systems which ease the pilot's task. It is too early to report on results. No decision has been taken on work beyond this programme.
    Mr. McMaster: In view of the great interest shown in this country in VTOL and the importance of the multijet as opposed to the deflector jet for vertical take-off, will my hon. Friend consider making use of the know-how which we have gained in this pioneering work over the past 10 years by formulating a requirement for another more advanced aircraft of this type?
    Mr. Price: I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he asks. As he knows, these aircraft were originally delivered in 1961 as experimental aircraft. But he is entirely right in suggesting that a lot of the knowledge gained has already been incorporated in such aircraft as the Harrier.

    United States Aircraft and Aeroengines
    Mr. Bishopasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what was the value of British imports of United States aircraft and aerospace products in the past year, compared with British exports to the United States of America in the same
    510
    period; and what further action he proposes to increase British exports.
    Mr. David Price: Imports of aircraft, aero-engines and parts from the United States of America amounted to £86 million in 1970; the corresponding figure for exports was £49 million. We shall continue to give every assistance to British exporters that we can.
    Mr. Bishop: Do not those figures show the confidence of the industry in the policies of the previous Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? Is not the conversion ratio of exports to imports higher for the British aircraft industry than for shipbuilding, vehicles and many other industries, and is there not an incentive here for continued pump-priming?
    Mr. Price: That point is a matter of economic fact. On his first point, there is no room for vast satisfaction when the imports were double the exports.

    Civil V/STOL Aircraft
    Mr. Bishopasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further progress has been made in the development of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what development of aero-engines specifically linked with civil short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft projects is at present being funded by his Department.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what was the expenditure incurred by him in design studies and development of vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing aircraft and engines, respectively, and in total during 1970; and what is his estimate of expenditure in this field during the current year and succeeding years.
    Mr. David Price: I take these Questions to apply to civil projects. No expenditure was incurred on design studies or development of V/STOL projects, but the Department continued to support exploratory work. Future expenditure will depend upon the results of the studies now nearing completion

    511
    and the reappraisal which must follow the financial failure of Rolls-Royce Limited.
    Mr. Bishop: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that more and more people are looking to a project of this kind for relief from air and surface traffic congestion, and can he assure us that work is going ahead on a number of problems, including air traffic congestion, noise and other social problems? Third, is he satisfied that the local authorities as well as the airport authorities are aware of the contribution which they can make in the advancement of these projects?
    Mr. Price: I agree with a great deal of that. This is an important, though potentially expensive, development which could take many years. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, quite apart from the purely technical feasibility factors, we must be satisfied about the economics of the operation, about noise levels and about the potential market, as well as major planning considerations such as those to which he referred. This has been very much at the heart of the Southampton University exploratory studies.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Britain has the lead in this field. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done to neglect the lead which we now have, realising that 15 years from now we could well get rid of concrete runways and use vertical take-off?
    Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we are doing extremely well in the exploratory work, but I do not think it is right to say that we have a unique lead in what we are really looking for, which is a commercial civil aircraft. It it in the military field that we are so distinguished.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the importance which an aircraft of this type could have in the development of the Scottish Highlands, which are tending to lose their land transport—for instance, their railways—and will he pay attention to that aspect of it?
    Mr. Price: I have great sympathy with any interest which the hon. Gentleman expresses in the Highlands, but I am not sure that everyone in the Highlands and the Highlands Tourist Board would think that filling the glens with vertical take-off
    512
    aircraft would necessarily be in the interests of the environment and the aim of attracting more tourists to the Highlands.

    Short Brothers and Harland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Aviation Supply what progress is being made with the capital reconstruction of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield: The Rolls-Royce position has introduced a new factor which is being examined, but I confirm my reply on 20th January that reconstruction of the company is currently under consideration. I then promised to make a statement in due course, and I will do so as soon as possible.—[Vol. 809, c. 1048–49.]
    Mr. McMaster: In view of the substantial loss of work which may result from the failure of Rolls-Royce and also the difficult employment situation in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to expedite the decision so that the company can press ahead with both engineering diversification and aviation research, design and production work to maintain employment in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. However, I am not optimistic about engineering diversification, which has been tried in the past with not very much success.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Countryside Commission (Staff)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what increases have been authorised in the staff of the Countryside Commission during the last six months; and what increases are at present under consideration.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): One post has been added and three have been regraded. The Countryside Commission informed me that the matter which was concerning it most was the senior staff structure, and I am pleased to say that I have now reached agreement with the chairman on the senior staff structure.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Whilst I welcome that statement to some extent, is the right hon.

    513
    Gentleman aware of the anxieties expressed in the last Report of the Commission and our general eagerness to encourage the Commission to get ahead with its very useful work?
    Mr. Walker: I am very anxious to encourage the Commission in its work. I have now settled with its Chairman the matter which was most important to it.

    Havering (Housing)
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply has been sent to the letter addressed to the Minister of Local Government and Development, on 15th December, 1970, by Mrs. B. Whitworth and others, requesting a local public inquiry into housing provision in the London borough of Havering.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Mrs. Whitworth's letter was received on 15th January, 1971. The reply has been delayed because of the Post Office strike, but my right hon. Friend is considering the matter urgently.
    Mr. Leonard: I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the urgency of the matter, which has been pending for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman stated, particularly in view of the disastrous collapse of the house-building programme in the London Borough of Havering, the failure of the borough council to undertake a fully comprehensive survey of the housing needs of the borough, and its failure to make further provision to assist the overall housing problem of the metropolis as a whole.
    Mr. Channon: I certainly cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman says. He is asking for an inquiry into these matters. My right hon. Friend has to make a decision on that application. The hon. Gentleman talks about delays. I agree that this has gone on far too long, but, unfortunately, the complainants indicated in September that they wished to comment further and it was not until January that we received a letter.

    Countryside Commission (Third Report)
    Mr. Maddanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to meet the criticisms
    514
    contained in paragraph 1.2 of the Third Report of the Countryside Commission.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It is not for me to defend the record of the previous Government, but as far as I am concerned I will at all times take landscape and conservation aspects fully into account when proposals for development are before me.
    Mr. Maddan: When doing that, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the areas now occupied by military establishments of one sort or another?
    Mr. Walker: I am delighted that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to have a committee to look into all the establishments now owned by the Defence Department. I had the opportunity of nominating such distinguished people as the Chairman of the Countryside Commission to sit on that committee.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Whilst it is quite true that it is not for the right hon. Gentleman to defend our record. is not it also true that on further mature consideration by him and his colleagues they have confirmed the original Chilterns route which their predecessors took?
    Mr. Walker: It is true that one of the four points criticised in the Report is the Chilterns route, and that we confirmed our support of the original route taken. I am glad that we have now obtained the conversion of the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a distinguished landscape artist, to support our original view.

    Countryside Commission (Functions and Finance)
    Mr. Fidlerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake discussions with the Countryside Commission with a view to redefining its functions and the financial resources which can be made available to it at the present time.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Discussion with the Commission on its work programme and the financial resources available to it is a continuing process.
    Mr. Fidler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he please take into account the introduction to

    515
    the Commission's Report for 1969–70 and bear in mind that hon. Members on this side, and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite, were most anxious to see more help given to maintain and restore our national heritage in an increasingly commercially-dominated age?
    Mr. Walker: Nine of the 12 months concerned were in no way my responsibility, but I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that adequate resources of both revenue and capital will be available to the Commission so that the recreational aspects of its functions can be properly expanded?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly, the Countryside Commission will have better resources than under the previous Government.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Kinseyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the operation of improvement grants, and take steps to ensure that they are applied to achieve the most effective use of resources.
    Mr. Channon: House improvements are an integral part of the Government's housing policy, and we are keeping the operation of the grants scheme under constant review.
    Mr. Kinsley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. This is a most wonderful scheme which is doing a tremendous job throughout the country. Will he now consider extending it to the pre-1939 houses which have bathrooms and hot water but are beginning to show signs of deterioration and need of modernisation? This would further help conserve our stock of houses which we want to keep.
    Mr. Channon: Both sides of the House strongly support this policy. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right in saying that the operation of the discretionary grant scheme for older houses would be of tremendous importance. I am delighted that Birmingham's house improvement month begins next week.
    Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the hon. Gentleman further consider extending the
    516
    house improvement grant to cover electrical re-wiring of houses? This is frequently the most expensive item in house improvement and its neglect is often the cause of tire damage.
    Mr. Channon: I am willing to consider any suggestion for the improvement of the scheme, which is heartily supported by all people of good will.
    Mr. Freeson: The 1969 Act already covers this need, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are not necessarily pursuing their powers in this respect as they should be? Is it not, therefore, most important in this connection, and in connection with general operations under the policy, that the manual which was in preparation under the last Government should be published as soon as possible and that advice should be issued specifically to local authorities pointing out that the Act was not intended to replace slum clearance programmes, as many authorities are now using it, or abusing it, in so doing?
    Mr. Chanson: I have no evidence that any local authorities are abusing the Act, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he has evidence I shall be delighted to look at it. I share the view he expressed in the earlier part of his supplementary question. I will look into the point about the manual. We are continually considering what further advice we should give local authorities about this matter.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Specialised and Technical Press (Lobby List)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for an increase in the number of lobby tickets available to the specialised and technical Press.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply I gave him on 20th January. This is not a matter for Ministerial decision.—[Vol. 809, c.281–2].
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for good reason or for bad, admission to the membership of

    517
    the Lobby of the House of Commons is a far more exclusive matter than entry to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club at St. Andrews? Could he let us into the secret of the basis on which this mysterious decision is made?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have no responsibility for admission either to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club or to the Lobby of the House of Commons.

    Refreshment Department
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Lord President of the Council why no English apples, and in particular Cox's Orange Pippins, have been available in the Member's dining room, cafeteria or tea room in the second or third weeks of January, in view of their quality and price at this time of year.
    Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
    Of all apples supplied in January, over 50 per cent. have been English Cox's Orange Pippins. The remainder have been English Laxtons or French Golden Delicious. In order to prevent waste, only one cask of apples is opened at a time.
    Mr. Wells: While I appreciate the care which my hon. Friend takes in keeping our apples fresh by opening only one box at a time—this explains the short-age—since the price now charged for apples represents a 400 per cent. profit if he bought them direct from the grower, or even a 100 per cent. profit if he bought them direct from the retailer, might he not always buy a small supply daily from retailers of Cox's, make 100 per cent. profit and give us fresh Cox's every day?
    Dr. Bennett: I am beholden to my hon. Friend for this interesting and helpful commercial suggestion. I assure him that we had already made arrangements that, while the supply of English Cox's Orange Pippins lasted, we would continue to get them.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Lord President of the Council why he has authorised the recent 12½ per cent. increase in prices in Members' eating places in the House.
    Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
    518
    Prices in Members' eating places in the House have had to be increased in order to meet the rise in the cost of supplies and the increases in pay of the staff of the Department, which were granted to them in December last.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee for that reply. Does he not think that there have been many increases during the past year? When he wants to put up prices, should he not consult hon. Members, and certainly give them notice, which he did not do? Ought he not to give more attention to the whole subject of feeding in the House of Commons so as to improve standards?
    Dr. Bennett: The last increase in the price of meals and the like served to hon. Members was more than a year ago, in January, 1970, if my records are correct. I owe the House an apology in that we did not promulgate these increases, which were agreed by the sub-committee without dissension. It was my view that we should see the prices on the menus and price lists in good time, but I gather that this was not the case. Clearly, we should have asked the Whips to circulate an announcement.
    As for maintaining prices, we have to make each of the so-called eating places severally pay its own way individually. That is the only way to proceed.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve the quality and choice of dishes available to Members in the dining rooms, cafeterias and tea rooms in the House.
    Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
    It is my constant desire to improve the quality and choice of the dishes available to Members in the dining rooms, cafeterias and tea rooms in the House, but at the same time I am trying to keep the cost of food to a minimum. The greater the choice the more risk there is of waste and, therefore, an increase in costs.
    Mrs. Short: The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee has been singularly unsuccessful in both his aims. Is he not aware that the standard of food has

    519
    decreased—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and has deteriorated to the same extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—hon. Members opposite never eat in the House of Commons—as prices have increased? Will the hon. Gentleman spend some time in the Members' tea rooms and the cafeterias where many Opposition Members eat and where they have to eat when they are kept at the House of Commons for many hours during the day and night? Will he see whether some new ideas, such as those already put before the Committee, can be introduced in order to increase the variety?
    Dr. Bennett: My experience in these matters hitherto was somewhat limited until I found myself in this appointment. I must assure the hon. Lady that I do not lack good advice, and I hope that I take most of it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members who are sane think that my hon. Friend has made a great improvement in the food?
    Hon. Members: What do you think?
    Dame Irene Ward: Is he also aware that the House as a whole would like my hon. Friend to convey to the staff our appreciation of the way that they have tried to help us? If nobody else will say it, I say that the Labour Government did not make much of a show when they chose the wrong Chairman.
    Dr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, without any reference to my previous qualifications. I am glad to have the opportunity of passing on to the staff the thanks of the House for their performance during these all night sittings. I had occasion to do so a week or so ago.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee explain why it is that, although it has no costs for heat, rent, rates, light, furnishings, cleaning or anything of that description, which form part of the heavy overheads of any private concern—accepting that wages should go up—that it is still possible to go across the road and to get food cheaper? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Chairman follow my example and stop eating here?
    Dr. Bennett: I will try.

    Hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone
    Mr. Roseasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, whose imprisonment was notified to the House on 22nd January.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rose: I am sure that the House will join me in deploring any violence in Northern Ireland, from whatever quarter it may come. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) was sentenced in his absence for an offence which did not involve violence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a matter of concern to the House to know the circumstances in which this took place and the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman now finds himself?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The position is, naturally, a matter of concern to the House, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The question of imprisonment was dealt with in the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges.

    Security
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in recent months in improving security in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Following a report from the Security Co-ordinator, a number of steps have been taken to improve security precautions in the House, and the Services Committee has further measures under urgent consideration.
    Mr. Hamilton: Have all those hon. Members, whether Government Ministers or back benchers, who have access to or are in possession of papers of a confidential nature accommodation which they can lock?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will look into that point, which the hon. Gentleman has properly put to me. But I think he would

    521
    agree that it would be unwise for me in general terms to go into details of the measures which have been taken.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: What examination has been made of the possibility of installing equipment of an anti-hijacking type at the entrance to the Strangers' Gallery, representations about which have been made to the right hon. Gentleman by a firm in my constituency?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to go beyond the terms of my original answer.
    Sir R. Thompson: In trying to balance the requirements of better security and the proper functioning of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most hon. Members would rather accept some degree of personal risk than see this place turned into a fortress difficult of access to our constituents?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I have much sympathy with it. I do not think that there is any question of trying to turn the House into a fortress of any kind.

    Members' Interests
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to refer to the Committee of Procedure a proposal to amend the standing orders to prevent Members from voting on matters with which they have a personal or vested interest, in a way similar to that in operation in local government so far as borough councillors are concerned.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. These matters were very thoroughly considered last Session by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which recommended the continuance of our present practice in this respect.
    Mr. Lewis: It may have been very well considered by the Committee, but the House has never really given it consideration. Is it not strange that borough councillors should be more strictly controlled than Members of the House of Commons? If borough councillors are so strictly controlled, should we not set a good example by at least having the same sort of system as they are subject to?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The problems which arose from the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests were carefully considered. In general terms what it proposed has much to commend it. I have always believed that to have put general resolutions would have raised considerable problems, as is widely accepted. I believe that we are right to proceed on the present basis.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might have cut down a great deal of debate on the Industrial Relations Bill had hon. Members opposite been to inhibited in this matter?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think I would be wise not to follow too far in that direction in present circumstances.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet outside the House about the number of hon. Members, particularly on his side of the House, who have outside financial interests which should be made public? If he cannot accept the recommendations of the Select Committee, will he at least provide time for a debate on the Report?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his strictures on one side of the House or the other in this regard. Following the Report, there was very careful consideration of whether the resolutions proposed would be suitable or would, in certain circumstances, be very much more restrictive than would be wise. It was felt that they would be so restrictive. I will consider the question of a debate but I cannot promise time in the near future.

    Parliamentary Delegations
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to initiate a system for election of delegates to the Council of Europe and other international organisations and conferences which delegates representing the British House of Commons, have to attend on similar lines to the Ballot for Private Members Bills and Motions.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: That is an amazing reply. One would not have expected the Lord President of the Council to give such a

    523
    reply. Is he aware that he has a reputation, as have most other hon. Members, for believing in extending democracy? Surely in the Council of Europe and everything connected with the E.E.C. we should show how democratic we are. A good way to start is by having a democratic system of electing those who are to go, instead of having the same old faces appointed by the Whips.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The present procedures in this matter have been followed by successive Administrations of both parties, and I believe that they have provided widespread satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am told that they have not, of course we can reconsider them, but I believe that they are the best way to proceed. No one has a closed mind on the matter, however, and if some better procedures can be proposed, by all means let them be considered.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I do not want to be sent to Strasbourg, thus involving me in a kind of dichotomy of loyalties not dissimiliar from the situation yesterday and on earlier days when I was required to be in the Coal Industry Committee upstairs while the Industrial Relations Bill was being considered downstairs, thereby effectively preventing a proper concentration and debate in either place?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that there is any danger of my hon. Friend going to the Council of Europe unless he wants to. His movements in the House are a somewhat different matter and in the long run something which inevitably he determines for himself.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Martenasked the Lord President of the Council what is the minimum time which will elapse between the announcement of terms for joining the Common Market and the taking of a definitive vote in the House of Commons on the proposals.
    Mr. Whitelaw: If the negotiations succeed and Parliament is invited to approve the Instrument of Accession, the Government will ensure that adequate time is allowed for consideration and discussion of the terms of the agreement.
    Mr. Marten: I apologise for the slightly hypothetical nature of the Question. Would my right hon. Friend agree that we shall want about three months for discussion in the country and at least six weeks for probing in the House before we have a vote on this issue, if it should ever arise?
    Mr. Whitelaw: At this stage, I could not state the exact period of time which may be required. It would, clearly, depend on many factors, but, of course, I will note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for the vote to be taken on a day when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is detained in his constituency?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It would certainly not be proper for me to enter into any such matters.

    Television Annunciators
    Mr. Costainasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for television annunciators to be placed in selected positions in the Chamber of the House of Commons, to indicate to visitors in the Strangers' Gallery who is speaking in the House.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will ask the Services Committee to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Costain: I am grateful for that answer. Would my right hon. Friend say when this can be installed for the benefit of the House?
    Hon. Members: Speak up.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to what I think my hon. Friend asked, we will certainly look into the question, and if it proves technically feasible it may be for the general convenience of the House and for members of the Press Gallery, but it is a question of whether it is technically feasible.

    Musical Recreation
    Mr. Fryasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will provide facilities in the House of Commons for musical recreation.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Judging from some recent performances here, it seems that existing facilities are adequate.
    Mr. Fry: In view of the past and perhaps future choral performances of Her Majesty's Opposition, who are clearly in need of efficient leadership of all kinds, would my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he could not at least offer the Opposition some musical leadership and a better choice of music which would be more fitting to Westminster than the Kremlin?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may sing in the Chamber and how they do it must be a matter for them and nobody else.

    Select Committee on Scottish Affairs
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council why he has not yet moved for the appointment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; and if he will treat this as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern at the delay. The Committee will be set up as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why has there been this delay in setting up this Committee? Is it not because the Government do not have enough Scottish Tory Members to man it? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if he puts zombies from the other place on the Committee, it will meet with violent opposition from Opposition Members?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Any delays which there may have been have not been because there are not enough of my hon. Friends to serve on the Committee.

    Division Lists
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to amend the procedure of the House so that the names of those Members who do not vote in Divisions can be recorded as well as the names of those who do.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ashton: Would it not considerably help the Birmingham Post and Crossbencher in the Sunday Express to have
    526
    these figures instead of having to peruse the lists, and would it not be a great help to constituents to know the voting records of hon. Members?
    Mr. Whitelaw: In practice, it might be difficult to distinguish the various reasons why from time to time various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not happen to be in a particular Division Lobby.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (WILBERFORCE REPORT)
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Report of the Court of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Lord Wilberforce.
The Report of the Court of Inquiry chaired by Lord Wilberforce into the dispute in the electricity supply industry is being published this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. It makes three main recommendations.
First, the Court makes recommendations about rates of pay. For all industrial staff other than skilled workers, the Court recommends that the employers' offer of an increase of £2 a week should be accepted as fair and reasonable and should take effect from last September. This recommendation covers around two-thirds of all industrial staff. The Court recommends that this offer should be increased by £35 a year for skilled workers only and that some increase should be made in shift allowances. It also recommends that the employers' offer of one day's additional holiday should be increased to three days. The Court recommends that these improvements over and above the employers' offer should take effect only from 14th December when industrial action ceased.
Secondly, the Court recommends a speeding up in the introduction of the local incentive bonus schemes provided for under existing agreements dating from 1967. It considers these by far the best way of ensuring an efficient and well paid labour force, and believes that the present rate of progress is too slow and causes real dissatisfaction amongst unions and employees. As an incentive to both management and employees to make more rapid progress, the Court recommends a scheme of "lead-in" payments to operate

527
by 1st June for those groups of workers who are not by then covered by bonus schemes.
Such a group would be offered a "lead-in" bonus if a majority of employees in that group formally accepted by majority vote the introduction of a bonus scheme in principle, the carrying out of such work study and work measurement as would first be necessary and the need to run down the number of employees to the point where a bonus scheme could be introduced and bonuses earned. Thereafter each individual worker would be asked to sign a note of acceptance.
The "lead-in" payments so proposed would be 20s. a week increasing to 30s. a week in October, 1971 and to 40s. in January, 1972. They would however stop once a bonus scheme was introduced or such a scheme was rejected. The economies to be achieved are in the Court's view of such a scale that these payments should not add significantly to labour costs.
Thirdly, the Court found that the action of the unions in refusing to let the dispute go to arbitration was a breach of their agreement and the Court deplores this action. The Court also finds that the action taken during the work-to-rule was, in many areas, in breach of agreements, and that it was wrong for the union leaders to put the public at risk by a failure to issue more specific instructions to their members. The Court recommends that obligations and responsibilities should be clarified for the future.
In framing these recommendations, the Court considered in particular the productivity record of the industry, including the contribution the unions and the employees have made, and the bearing on the public and national economic interest. The Court says that it recognises that the country is at present in a dangerous condition of spiralling inflation; and that it should have regard to the dangers of giving this an extra twist. It concludes, however, that set against past and prospective performance in the electricity industry and the special factors relating to this case the settlement it recommends ought not to intensify inflationary pressures.
The employers estimated that their last offer would have increased average earnings by 9·7 per cent. On the same basis
528
the Court's recommendations would represent 10·9 per cent. in the year from September 1970. The total addition to the wage bill should, however, be substantially less than this with the continuing redaction in the labour force which the Court believes should be accelerated with the more rapid extension of bonus schemes. It is in this way that the Court believes that electricity workers can best—and justifiably—benefit from increased efficiency in the industry.
The Court makes it clear that its recommendations are related specifically to the circumstances and special factors in the electricity industry, particularly the contribution that the unions and employees have made and can increasingly make in improving productivity. There is therefore no question of the Court's recommendations being applicable in other industries in different situations. I must reaffirm—as the Court itself accepts—that if inflation is to be brought under control the general level of pay settlements must be reduced as rapidly as possible to a level much closer to the general rise in national productivity.
I have communicated the Report to the employers and unions concerned and I understand they will be discussing it together at an early date. I hope the recommendations in the report will provide an early settlement.
Mrs. Castle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his first consideration should be to try to bring peace to this industry by getting acceptance of this Report? That being so, will he not be more frank with the House and the country and admit, first, that the Court recognised that the workers concerned had a genuine grievance which was not being met by the electricity boards' offer; and, secondly, that the Court has therefore recommended substantial improvements which amount, in terms of an immediately operative improvement, to 12·6 per cent. taking into account shift payments, the additional payment for skilled workers and the additional holidays, and that, further, the lead-in payments which are to come into operation by next June at the latest will add another 2·8 per cent., making an average increase in earnings of 15½ per cent. in all, with further increases due in October and next January?

529
Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to correct the bowdlerised version of what he says the Court said about inflation, read to the House those passages in the Report pointing out that it is impossible to cure the inflationary problem by trying to lean on individual wage payments without taking into account the need to hold down price increases and stimulate growth?
Mr. Carr: I agree, and I should have hoped that the right hon. Lady would also agree, that it is the job of all of us to try to ensure that the Report of the Court of Inquiry leads to a settlement. I certainly agree with that. I do not think that the right hon. Lady's words contributed very much to that cause.
I was completely frank with the House. I underlined certainly once, and I am almost sure more than once—and if any hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will see it confirmed—that the Court had stressed that the contribution of the unions and their members to productivity had been outstanding and that that was the only reason it was able to make the recommendation it made. That is quite clear.
Secondly, the figures which I quoted were the Court's own figures, and I have the authority of the Court to make that clear. It accepts the figures which I have given, and I do not for one moment accept the figures which the right hon. Lady has given. Her figures are not right. They are a most irresponsible contribution to the major overriding need of this country to bring inflation under better control. How they can be uttered by a right hon. Lady who left her Department with a White Paper saying that price increases should not—[Interruption].—wage increases should not exceed 4½ per cent., and with prices rising faster than they had risen for 20 years, passes all bounds of credibility—even the right hon. Lady's credibility on industrial relations.
Mr. Gardner: In view of the careful and balanced recommendations about which we have just heard, would not this be the moment to try again to persuade the Post Office workers, in their own interests and the interests of the nation, to go to arbitration?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: And the lawyers.
Mr. Carr: I do not think that it would be wise for me or the House to get involved in another dispute today, but I hope that the House and everyone on both sides of all industries will read and pay great attention to what the Wilberforce Committee said about the failure of the unions in this case to honour their agreement regarding arbitration.
Mr. Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two other major claims in this industry before the electricity boards, namely, for the technical staff and the clerical staff. Are the Wilberforce Committee's recommendations intended to be a guide in the settlement of those claims?
Mr. Carr: I trust that the arguments used in this Report and the analysis on which they are based, which I believe are of a very high order, will be read, marked and taken into account by all other people. The vital thing in the Report is that the Committee underlines the special circumstances of the case into which it was looking and, therefore, the 10·9 per cent., on the same basis that the employers' offer was labelled as a 10 per cent. offer, is not held out by the Committee as, and should not be taken by anybody else to be, a norm of any kind, because it was justified only by the exceptional contribution of productivity in this industry.
Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend refer to page 48 of the Report which arrives at the conclusion that the settlement, which he has quantified at 10·9 per cent., would not result in an increase in "inflationary pressures"? Having regard to those words, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government's control over the tariffs of nationalised industries will preclude any possibility of an increase in electricity prices as a result of this award?
Mr. Carr: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend, the House and the country to the point made in the Report that if the productivity incentive bonus payments, as the Court prefers to call them, are widely implemented, it will be an example of how individual earnings can be increased without increasing costs. That is the essence of this Report, and

531
if that lesson is learned in every industry, including this industry, I think that my hon. Friend and the country will be highly satisfied about the effect on prices.
Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the additional cost to the industry of this award before the efficiency agreements come into force? Does he agree that the very fact that Lord Wilberforce and his colleagues have limited their Report to one industry shows that they see it as the Government's duty to establish some principles for regulating wages in the public sector and it cannot be left to a series of ad hoc inquiries into various industries? If the criterion is to be extra productivity, is it to apply to all nationalised and public services and, if so, how are some of them to achieve it because in some of them it is almost impossible to relate work to productivity?
Mr. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman has raised some fundamental points, but I would remind him and the House of two things.
I do not believe that that is the central message of the Wilberforce Report, although, quite properly, these matters are discussed in the Report. One of the central messages of the Report is that the Committee accepted the overall spiralling of inflation, which it said was dangerous, and it said that each and every claim and settlement must be judged in that context and that context must, therefore, affect each and every settlement. That is an immensely important thing for the Committee to have said, and it is immensely important for the future.
As to the wider points of the right hon. Gentleman's question, we have to differentiate here sharply between the world of theory and the real world of practice. In theory, when this Government came to power last June it took over an instrument for surveying all these things which, on paper, was a nice tidy-looking incomes policy under which increases should not have been outside the 2½ to 4½ per cent. range. In practice that policy was a "busted flush". It would have been quite pointless to have continued it.
Mr. Charles Morris: Has the Secretary of State seen the Press statement this morning attributed to the general secretary
532
of the Union of Post Office Workers indicating that the U.P.W.'s executive council will consider, against the background of the Wilberforce recommendations, whether to prolong the Post Office dispute or seek arbitration? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices and his powers of conciliation to examine the findings of the Wilberforce Committee to find whether this is a basis for leading both sides in the Post Office dispute back to the negotiating table?
Mr. Carr: I have said before, and repeat, that I believe arbitration is the way forward in the Post Office dispute. I will certainly use any good offices I have to that end.
Mr. Tapsell: If the rate of national production is rising at about 3 per cent. per year, is it not clear that an award of 10·9 per cent. is exceptionally generous? If it is to be regarded as a universal yardstick, would it not be a recipe for national disaster?
Mr. Carr: Yes, but the Court of Inquiry itself specifically underlines that this was an award in the particular circumstances of this industry and must not be used as a general national yardstick.
Mr. Loughlin: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the moment the primary need is to get both sides of the industry to accept the decision of the Wilberforce Committee? Will he not also accept that any attempt to write down the award is likely to induce the unions not to accept the Committee's Report? Is it not true that the overall affect of the Report is to give to the trade union a 13·4 per cent. increase, and ought he not to emphasise that factor in the hope that we can get the unions to accept the Report so that there is no recurrence of the dispute?
Mr. Carr: I have not written down what the Report indicates. I repeat that the figure I gave is the figure which the Court itself had, and I have the Court's authority to say this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we ought to try to get this accepted as a basis of settlement. The overall recommendation offers the opportunity to all the workers in that industry substantially to increase their earnings in return for increases in productivity which will not add to the overall

533
costs of the industry. That is the great opportunity this offers, and the whole purpose of the lead-in bonus payments which have been suggested—which are totally different from the old lieu bonuses with which all of us in industry have been familiar for so long—is to give a strong incentive both to management and employeees to move faster in the direction of these incentive bonus systems, which will give the individual and industry much higher earnings without increasing costs for the community.
Mrs. Castle: Could the Secretary of State, for the convenience of the House, give the paragraph number of the Report in which the Court gives the percentage figure that he has quoted to us? If it is not in the Report, why was it not in the Report? Why was it suddenly produced like a rabbit out of a hat for the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's argument? Is it not a fact that if the Court had wished to put a percentage figure in the Report itself it could and would have included one, but has not done so? Although it is true that the Report is merely dealing with a particular wage claim, it has general remarks to make about the way in which it cannot be expected that any group of workers will accept restraint in wage demands as long as there is no attempt to control prices or to hold out any hope of growth.
Mr. Carr: As for the percentage figure, it is correct that it is not in the Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is entirely up to the Committee to decide what it does or does not put into its Report. [Interruption]. I never said it was in the Report. The Committee believes that its argumentation stands on its own feet without the mention of percentages, and in the Committee's view percentages would be misleading. As a general method of calculation, it is difficult to decide how best to present the effect of any settlement in any industry. Anybody who likes to present the figure as a higher percentage cannot then claim that the employers' offer was 9·7 per cent.
What is incontrovertible and absolutely accepted by the Court, which is the figure it had before it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which paragraph?"] I did not write the Committee's Report for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I can only report
534
what is true, which is that 10·9 per cent. was the figure which the Committee had before it before signing the Report and which it accepted as being the effect of its recommendations. I have the Committee's authority to say this to the House. [Interruption.]
Since this is evidently regarded by the House as an important matter, perhaps I should indicate the basis of the calculation. The employers' offer was calculated to add £15·091 million to the annual wage bill as it stood at last September. The annual wage bill of the industry as at last September was £155·9 million. On that basis that offer represented an increase of 9·68 per cent., or 9·7 per cent. as I said to the House. The Committee's additional recommendations add £1·905 million to the employers' offer, making a total of £16·996 million, which is 10·9 per cent. of the last September wage bill of £155·9 million. This is the basis of calculation of the employers' offer and the comparable offer put forward by the Court and is therefore—[Interruption.] The two things are strictly comparable, but if the House wishes to judge what the Court has proposed by the same yardstick as it judged the employers' offer, the correct comparison is as between 10·9 per cent. and 9·7 per cent.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Whilst congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the use of cosmetics in presenting the Report this afternoon, may I ask whether he agrees, on the figures which he has just read out to the House, that the calculated figure which he gave earlier was based on an annual rate from September, 1970, the date which he quoted, and that, since a number of the Court's recommendations—only a small proportion of them—go back to September, 1970, but some take effect in December and some during this summer, the annual rate from now on, from the date of publication of the Report, is as was stated by my right hon. Friend earlier? If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that calculation, may I ask him to present the figures to the House in a White Paper, or in some other way, so that we can do our own calculations without the benefit of cosmetics?
Secondly, since the right hon. Gentleman made this very moving plea, which really impressed some of us—[Interruption]. certainly—when he was arguing

535
that it was very misleading to use percentages in these cases, will he say why three of his right hon. Friends, at a most difficult point in the electricity dispute, laid down a figure, expressed in a percentage, which should not be exceeded? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this up with his right hon. Friends and draw to their attention the benefit of using words such as those he has used this afternoon?
Mr. Carr: I think that before the right hon. Gentleman criticises the use of percentages, he must accept—[Interruption.]—two things. First, from his own and his right hon. Friend's experience, the right hon. Gentleman must know that it is very difficult to know what is the best and most accurate way of putting these matters forward. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman must know that, despite these difficulties, the Labour Government consistently used percentages as the basis of their criteria, that their criteria for 1970 was between 2½ and 4½ per cent., and that we are here dealing with something of the order of 10 per cent., which is a long way above that.
Hon. Members: Now answer the question.
Mr. Carr: On the specific question which the right hon. Gentleman raised, I said in my statement that this represented a 10·9 per cent. addition in the year from September. The wage year in this industry runs from September to September. Therefore, this is a perfectly fair and normal thing to do. If the right hon. Gentleman and the House want to know what the annual rate is, I shall certainly tell them. It is not what the right hon. Lady said. It is 11·3 per cent.—[HON. Members: "Oh."]
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (WILBERFORCE REPORT)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 26th FEBRUARY
  Members successful in the Ballot were:

  Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

  Mr. David Crouch.

  Mr. Neil Marten.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [SIXTH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th February.]
  Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 57

  TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS
  4.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): I beg to move Amendment No.747, in page 45, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and add:
  () In this Act, 'trade union' means an organisation (whether permanent or temporary) which either

  (a) consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and is an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers' asociations, or

  (b) consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil the conditions specified in the preceding paragraph (or themselves consist wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions) or consists wholly or mainly of representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations, and in either case is an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and employers' associations or include the regulation of relations between its constituent or affiliated organisations, and

  (c) is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or of one or more employers' associations.

  The Chairman: With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 791, in page 44, line 38, after second 'employers', insert:
  'and is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or one or more employers' associations'.
  Amendment No.792, in page 45, line 10, at end insert:
  'and is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or one or more employers' associations'.
  Amendment No.763, in Clause 61, page 46, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert 'trade union'.

  537
  And Amendment No.768, in Clause 63, page 49, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
  Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Before the debate begins on what I understand is the question of the General Register, may I take it that anything will be in order in the debate in so far as the Register impinges on everything in the Bill?
  The Chairman: We shall have to wait and see how we get on. The right hon. Gentleman may be right. I shall adjudicate on the matter when the time comes.
  Mr. Pannell: Further to that point of order. I am anxious to be courteous to the Chair. The difficulty in proceedings of this kind is that when the Chair has made a pronouncement, such as you, Sir Robert, have just made, and somebody else subsequently takes the Chair, we get a confusion of Rulings. You have ruled on something under your liberal guidance, probably somebody later will rule on a constrictive basis. Therefore, as this is likely to be a long debate, we must know beyond peradventure that the debate can be very wide, so that we can quote your wise words when we get into difficulties.
  The Chairman: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I shall do my best to see that those who relieve me in the Chair are appraised of what I have said. We shall do our best to be as liberal as possible with the Committee consistent with the rules of order. We are debating under the guillotine. Therefore, certain tolerance from the Chair is called for.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Further to that point of order. We are grateful, Sir Robert, for what you have said. May we take it that it is understood that in this discussion about the register we are also to discuss Schedules 3 and 4 which are intimately associated with the whole question of registration? I believe that that has been part of your guidance in selection.
  The Chairman: Yes. The right hon. Lady is, as generally, quite correct.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to that point of order. May I ask whether the Chair and the Commit-
  538
  tee agree that it would have been a far more intelligent procedure not to worry about these Amendments, but to have a general debate on Clause stand part? We could then have six or seven hours, or whatever it is, debating the Clause. We should then know precisely what we were all talking about. I think that that would make good sense. Surely this would be the best way to proceed.
  The Chairman: That may be, but that is not for the Chair. The Chair must look at the Amendments which are put down and use its judgment upon what Amendments it should call. It is for the general opinion of the Committee. If the Committee think it right, it must do so accordingly. Otherwise, the Chair must deal with the matter as it appears on the Order Paper.
  Mr. James Johnson: Further to that point of order. You, Sir Robert, said, "We shall see as we go on." I take it that that is a liberal interpretation and that the debate can go very wide.
  The Chairman: Order. It is difficult to make a general declaration on a large group of Amendments of what might or might not be in order at any one time. I hope that the Committee will leave it to the desire of the Chair to meet the wishes of the Committee as a whole.
  Mr. John Fraser: I understand that it will be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 791, 792, 763 and 768. I think that we shall almost certainly want a Division on Amendment No.768.
  This group of Amendments—in particular Amendment No.747—brings us to what is really one of the major issues in the Bill. Put simply, it is whether a trade union——
  Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order. I do not know whether there is anything wrong with the amplifying system, but it is impossible to hear my hon. Friend, even at this distance.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Further to that point of order. I think it is done in ignorance of the fact that, by turning his head towards you, Sir Robert, the hon. Gentleman's voice is not carried over by the amplifier.
  The Chairman: There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to address the Chair, but if he can throw his voice outwards I think that everyone will hear well.
  Mr. Fraser: I apologise to my hon. Friends, and I hope that they can now hear me.
  We are now discussing one of the major issues raised by the Bill, and it is whether a trade union, as it has existed for the last 60 years, may continue to be a trade union because, under the terms of the Clause, unless a trade union is registered as a trade union, unless it chooses to go through the hoop, it will, for the purposes of this Measure, no longer be a trade union.
  The purpose of this group of Amendments is to elucidate whether a trade union, unless it goes through the hoop of registration and complies with the requirements laid down by the Government, will become only an organisation of workers and be exposed to many penalties, and whether, if it wants to continue as a trade union, it may do so on one condition only, and that is a condition which I do not think is attached to any comparable organisation. The condition is that it may be a trade union only if it gets licence from the State.
  The provisions for the giving of a licence are unequalled anyway anywhere because, to get a licence, a trade union has to observe the principles set out in Clause 61. These are principles for which I believe there is no precedent in any other legislation about incorporation. There are no similar provisions in the Companies Acts. If there were, it might be that brewers would have to observe certain principles, and perhaps be struck off the register for subscribing money to the Conservative Party.
  The whole purpose of legislation is to be precise, and that is what industrial collective bargaining is all about. We must have agreements which are precise, and which people understand. One hoop through which a trade union must go before it is registered is that it must comply with certain principles. I challenge the Solicitor-General to give us examples of so vague a concept being applied to the running of any other organisation.
  540
  One principle is that the organisation is to be denied the right to choose its own members, a principle of association which is not observed in any other sphere. Secondly, it has to jump through the hoop of Schedule 3. Under that Schedule, if a union is registered it will be robbed of the discretion to appoint its own officers and officials and to specify which official does what. If a union wants to have a degree of discretion to be able to change duties from one person to another in the light of particular situations, it will not be able to be registered.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that Clause 61 precluded unions from having the right to elect its own officers. Is that a reference to subsection (4)? If so, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is subject to the words
  "by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination"?
  Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it is wrong to have a principle that there should be no arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination in the selection of officers?
  Mr. Fraser: I am not arguing that case. We shall in due course discuss Clause 61 in more detail. If one looks at the earlier wording of the subsection, one sees that it is so drawn that it includes many people who may not be able to be admitted to a trade union. For instance, the subsection refers to a person being "reasonably well qualified". The right hon. and learned Member is a member of the Bar. Will he tell me whether somebody who is reasonably well qualified—not qualified—will, under this provision, be allowed to be admitted to the Bar? The same question may be asked about solicitors, or about any other professional organisation. The earlier part of the subsection is drawn so widely that one is virtually denied the right to choose the members of one's trade union. There are enormous practical implications here, not only for organisations such as Equity, mining organisations, fire officers, safety officers, and so on, but many others, of which no doubt my hon. Friends will give examples.
  The other point to note is that in order to get a State licence a trade union runs the risk of investigation by the Registrar

  541
  under Clause 79 if it has acted in contravention of the principles set out in the Bill. The point here is that there is a vague concept of principles, and it is important to note that the Clause does not say that the union can be investigated for a breach of its rules, a concept which I could not accept anyway, but merely that if a trade union has broken what, in the Government's view, is a broad concept, and has not spelled out in detail, as most Statutes would do, what it has done, it will be subject to investigation, and again I can find no precedent for such a provision.
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 64 is the most objectionable Clause of all. Under it, in order to get its State licence, a union must comply with requirements imposed by the Registrar. There is no qualification of the Clause, and my view is that one has to read its provisions in the light of Clause I, and this is where it begins to assume significance. Clause 1 says that trade unions have to be responsible. "Responsible" is a subjective word, and therefore I take it, from the conditions which will be attached to the licence granted to a trade union, that one could get the situation that the Registrar will use political tests, based on the vague concepts in Clause 1, to decide whether a trade union will be registered or not. This really smacks of such a wide discretion as to affront any reasonable lawyer, and it smacks of the wide discretion which is common in countries which do not know democracy.
  Mr. C. Pannell: My hon. Friend raised with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) the question of definitions. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will define what is a reasonable lawyer.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: Certainly not the Solicitor-General.
  Mr. Fraser: I now come to deal with Amendment No. 768. A federation cannot apply for registration as a trade union unless all its constituent members are also registered trade unions. This means that the Government are putting federations through the hoop because, under the terms of the Clause as it stands, the T.U.C. cannot become a registered trade
  542
  union unless all its constituent members also become trade unions, and the same applies to other federations of trade unions. The result of this provision will be to drive a divide in federations of organisations. The result will be to drive a divide in the T.U.C., which will then be faced with doing one of two things. It will either have to expel the affiliated organisations if it wants to get registration—because all its constituent members have to be trade unions before it can become a trade union for the purpose of the Bill—or face the possibility of not being a trade union. In that event, it will be possible for the T.U.C. to be sued for damages for aiding and abetting a strike in breach of contract.
  That is the Government's recipe for better industrial relations. They propose to drive a wedge in the T.U.C. by making it difficult for it to carry on as the kind of organisation that it is now. The Government propose to drive wedges through federations of trade union organisations and then to expose the T.U.C., if necessary, to actions for damages. This is another hoop through which any organisation will have to jump in order to get its State licence. This concept of a State licence is an assault upon the right of association such as one knows it in most democratic countries.
  As I said last night, no such provision exists for companies.
  Mr. Gower: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. He will be aware that if he or I sought to register a new company, or even if we applied for a name for it, the Registrar would want to be sure that the composition of the board of the proposed company was of such standing as to merit use of such a name, particularly if it was a territorial name which gave the public the impression that it was a company of some substance. There are all sorts of requirements of that nature in company legislation.
  Mr. Fraser: As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman last night, the company does not have to register. It can continue as a partnership and does not have to go through the hoop at all. The law which applies to a partnership in relation to third parties and the law relating to a company and its relationships with third parties, on the sort of issues with which we are dealing, industrial contracts, the

  543
  law of tort and so on, will be basically the same. The second mistake which the hon. Gentleman makes is that he equates the duties and the responsibilities thrust upon a number of people who, let us say, work in a sweat shop, who want to get a decent standard of living, with a company that wants to register with a capital of £1 million in order to trade all over the world. There is an imbalance of power between many working class people and the holders of power and wealth.
  The sort of rules laid down here do not apply to companies, otherwise the Solicitor-General would be saying that no company would be able to issue non-voting shares. Since the company is on one side of the bargain and the trade union is on the other side, why is it that the shareholders, the people who contribute to the wealth and prosperity of the country, should be denied even a vote for the choice of their board of managing directors. There is no equation between the two, first, because the power is not equal, second, because some of the principles of these rules go much further than those applying to any other association, and third, in all other spheres of activity people have the right to choose between becoming registered and not becoming registered. The whole purpose of the Bill is to force trade unions into registration.
  Last night we had an inkling of the reason for requiring registration and compliance with the principles, directives and broad discretion set out in the Bill. It was that if the trade unions want certain privileges they have to undertake the requirements of registration. What an insult to the trade union movement. Do the Government believe that the T.U.C. exercises unreasonable privileges in the way in which it tries to work in the fostering of our economy? What about trade union leaders' contributions on economic development committees and the time that they voluntarily give for the good of the country? Do they think that that is a privilege? It is not. These services are willingly given for the benefit and prosperity of the country. Do the Government think that the unofficial duties undertaken by trade union officials outside their organisations are privileges for which they have to suffer penalties
  544
  under the Bill? That is an insult to the trade union movement.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we do not have a problem of abuse of privilege by the trade union movement, and that it acts responsibly and enters into responsible bargains. In its thinking is very often way ahead of employers and certainly of this Government. To say that up to now they have enjoyed privileges as a result of which they must now be subjected to registration is an insult to many millions of people belonging to the movement.
  The Government force them into this because they say, "If you do not register you will be liable for damages, and for many activities which you undertake at present for your members you will risk prosecution in the courts. If you do not register you will not be able to claim the legal right of recognition. If you do not register, you will be deprived of many of the rights and customs which you have been able to enjoy up to the present time." Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is forcing them into his registration and his kind of registration.
  Many unions may choose not to register. Many people may choose to exercise their right of association, as an organisation of workers, in a way in which they think fit. There is no evidence that unions are undemocratic. Broadly speaking, their rules are good ones, and better than those of other organisations. But the Government are forcing them either to register—which some will find difficult—or not to register. If they do not, they will be subject to damages. What they are trying to tell the Committee and the country is that somehow this legal claptrap will improve industrial relations, and that somehow they will be improved if the T.U.C. is laid open to actions for damages. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that applications to the High Court by the Registrar to deregister a union because it does not come up to the terms of his requirements, which are broad and vague in the Bill, will improve industrial relations, he is making a very severe mistake. This is an assault on the right of association. It is an insult to the trade union movement. Our Amendments should be accepted and it ought to be dropped.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When my right hon. and learned Friend

  545
  used the word "privileges" yesterday, he was probably using the word in its strict legal sense. He would be the first to recognise that in the social and political sense the trade union movement has no special privileges and exercises its powers in a reasonable way, as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) suggested. But we are dealing with strictly legal matters at the moment, whether the Opposition like it or not. "Privileges" is the correct word in law.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Rights.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The parallel with the registration of companies which the hon. Member for Norwood drew is not a bad one. He, however, equated companies with partnerships. But the privilege which the company gets from registration, as opposed to the partnership, is the great privilege of limited liability. It is an enormous privilege. The privilege—again using the word in its legal sense—which the registered trade union will get is in a sense a greater privilege, because its liability would not merely be limited but would be nil. Therefore, there is a parallel between the requirement of registration of a company and of a trade union, in principle though not in detail. It is a parallel in principle in favour of the registered trade union, because its liability will be nothing, whereas the liability of the company in actions in the court is limited to the amount of its paid up capital, or capital whether paid up or not. Whether it be right or wrong socially, that is the legal reason for calling the position "privilege".
  We are dealing with the new Registrar, who is certainly a very different and much more powerful animal than the old Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Registrar of Friendly Societies, who has hitherto dealt with these matters, has had no compulsory powers, although about 80 per cent. of trade unions find it convenient to register. and his task has been chiefly one of examining the internal finances of trade unions and seeing that the right annual returns are made. Fortunately, in this country here have been no great financial scandals about trade unions, as there have been, for example, in the United States. Therefore, his functions have been out of the public glare altogether. No very great change is suggested
  546
  in that regard under the new Registrar. But the new Registrar now takes on a very much greater importance. He has to pass the rules, not those merely connected with the making of reports relating to the property and income of a trade union, but those set out on page 175 of the Donovan Report, concerning who shall be qualified for admission, who shall decide who is qualified for admission, what right of appeal someone not admitted shall have, questions of discipline, questions of election, and, according to Schedule 3 of the Bill, questions of expulsion. It is on that last note that I would like to hear what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind for what some hon. Members may regard as a bee in my bonnet, and that is the question of expulsion from a union which is operating an agency shop.
  4.30 p.m.
  There is nothing in Schedule 3 giving any such question of expulsion a special place. To take up some words used by the hon. Member for Norwood, I wonder whether the rather vague words in Clause 64(4)(b) have any connection with what I am now discussing. When the rules are submitted to the Registrar,
  "If on any such application the registrar is satisfied—(a) that the body making the application is an organisation of workers and that it is eligible for registration as a trade union, and (b) that the requirements of subsection (3) of this section …"
  and then follow the very vague words,
  "… and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with …"
  That can scarcely be construed ejusdem generis. It is extremely wide, and I wonder whether that is to be the way in which, where an agency shop is operated, the registrar will require rather better provisions as to appeal from expulsion than are normally provided and are suggested in Schedule 3.
  If that is one of the "other requirements" that are envisaged, it will have my support. But I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood that we want to know what sorts of "other requirements" the Registrar is likely to demand. It is a very large discretion. It is true that there is an appeal from the Registrar's discretion to the Industrial Court under Clause 72(3). In other words, there is some safeguard against a Registrar taking

  547
  too rigid a view. But I assume that courts are not likely to interfere with the Registrar's decision except where he has not exercised it judicially, and that he remains a powerful person with a wide discretion in the way that I have suggested.
  It may be that my hon. and learned Friend can meet some of the hon. Gentleman's fears by indicating, preferably with examples, how he envisages the other requirements that the Registrar might see fit to impose as a condition of registration. I am not against giving the Registrar these powers, if they are properly defined or at least indicated. It is right, for example, that in Clause 77 someone who has been expelled from a trade union may ask the registrar to investigate the circumstances. That seems to be a very proper power. Again, I assume that there is an appeal to the Industrial Court against the Registrar's decision. However, we should be clear that we are setting up machinery which is very novel and powerful and which I regard as necessary if the paragraphs of the Donovan Report dealing with trade union rules are to have any reality. Without the interposition of a powerful agency such as that of the registrar, all the rest will be so much beating the air.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has drawn attention to the difficulty, which has been recognised even by some hon. Members opposite, about the meaning of "reasonably well qualified", and that is illustrative of the problems which will face trade unions as a result of this Clause.
  The difficulty of forcing the independent trade union movement, with its extraordinarily wide variety of procedures, into a sort of straitjacket is known to all hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and it is beginning to be known by some hon. Members opposite. To be fair, it was already known to those of them who had some personal experience of the industrial world. Certainly it was known to some employers who are not in this House, because a number of them have taken the trouble to tell hon. Members on both sides about the problems that they will face as a result of trying to force the complex whole into a simple pattern.
  548
  The situation facing Equity in this connection is extraordinarily difficult. I do not suggest that it is unique, because it is similar to that which faces other unions. However, Equity is a useful example to take in order to illustrate the problems which will be faced.
  Here is a trade union in which the reasonable qualification for entering is the possession of a contract. No one who has failed to persuade an employer that he is sufficiently well qualified to be given a job can enter the union. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may cry, "Closed shop". However, it is an open or union shop. It is not a closed shop. In the sense that we are discussing this series of Amendments, the possession of a job is all important. The union says that, if anyone can persuade an employer to give him a job, he will be accepted into membership. The job is his qualification. So we are not even discussing a pre-entry closed shop. The union says that the job is the qualification for membership. That is the "reasonably well qualified" operation in this respect.
  It is written into every contract of employment that directly or indirectly the means of identifying the performer's qualification is that he shall remain a member of the union. That brings us immediately to the next subsection, which claims the right for a person to resign from a union. In Equity if anyone exercises that right, he breaks his contract. The contract provides directly or indirectly that he shall remain a member of the union.
  If that provision were put into effect, every single contract in films, television and the stage, would become invalid overnight. This provision goes to the root of the contract. It cannot be broken and still leave the contract in existence. In the event of this provision being put on the Statute Book, every contract in the entertainment industry will become renegotiable overnight.
  It may be said that the situation arises because of the very nature of the business but that it does not go to the heart of the industrial welfare of the country. I have been a member of five unions in my lifetime and never a member at any one time of fewer than two. I am at the moment a member of the A.S.T.M.S.

  549
  which was referred to the other day as Mr. Clive Jenkins' union. That is an example of a union which is becoming, almost the trade union equivalent of the conglomerates into which industrial organisations are moving.
  If hon. Members want the trade union movement to modernise itself, to match itself to developments in industry, we will have amalgamations and some sections of members of the same union being placed in an entirely different position from other members. These are all expected to be subject to the same rules which this section seeks to force into a set, ordered pattern.
  We on this side face an impossibility. Nothing which we can do to amend this part of the Bill can make any sense of it. Nothing can make it operate in a fashion which will be to the interests of the employing organisations, let alone the unions. The only thing which we can do is to try to remove some of the more absurd anomalies.
  Later, I shall explain this in greater detail, on a specific Amendment relating to Clause 61(3), which provides that every member of a union shall have the right to terminate his membership—at anytime. This is entirely intolerable and unreasonable in some spheres. We cannot have a situation in which, at the drop of a hat, perhaps in the middle of a dispute, a member may say, "I think that I will resign; I will walk out of this situation. It does not apply to me, it is all right for you Jack". This is to apply "at any time".
  What a situation for the trade union movement. What a situation of chaos for the employers. This series of Amendments does something to mitigate these harmful results. All we can do is make it a little less bad: there is nothing that we can do to make it a good Bill.
  Mr. Gower: I do not complain that both hon. Members opposite who have spoken should feel concerned about the details of the system of registration embodied in this part of the Bill. Indeed, they would feel that they were neglecting their duty if they did not scrutinise such provisions with great care. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser)—I hope that he will forgive me if I simplify his argument—asked whether trade unions, as they have existed for the past 60 years, will continue to exist.
  550
  I believe that they will continue to exist broadly as they have in the past, but they will be assuming an even larger rôle. In many cases, in the past, their limitations—if such they may be described—have sometimes been due not to excessive power or excessive claims or privileges but sometimes to lack of power and lack of means. In this Bill—this Clause is only part of the change—certain additional powers will be given to most of the unions which choose to register.
  The hon. Member then complained that if a particular union chose not to register, it would suffer some penalty or disability. I quarrel with that statement. Those unions which choose to adopt a new system of registration will enjoy enhanced powers or privileges. To that extent, those which do not register, in comparing their new situations with those which do, might be tempted to say that they are suffering in comparison, but it is not accurate to say that new penalties will be imposed upon them.
  Mr. John Fraser: May I give one example? If a trade union has entered into a legally binding collective agreement under the law as it is at the moment, and then does not or cannot register, all sorts of penalties and liabilities will attach to its officials in respect of the contract made before the passing of the Bill, if it becomes law, which would not have attracted to it when the contract was first made. That is why I said that penalties will attach to trade unions which either cannot register or do not choose to register.
  [Mr. JENNINGS in the Chair]
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Gower: I still say that these are not penalties, as described by the hon. Member. If any Government, this Government or any other, once decided that a system of registration should be introduced—this has been decided upon as one of the bases of this legislation—it would be a strange registration if all the unions, whether they registered or not, were in exactly the same position afterwards. In other words, it would be an astonishing kind of registration if a union which did not register was in exactly the same position, in every respect, as one which did. The registration

  551
  system could then be said to be worthless. I hope that no one would expect any legislative assembly to introduce a worthless system of registration.
  Mr. John Mendelson: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the supporters of registration and of this part of the Bill cannot simply claim that there is bound to be a change if one adopts this change? They must prove, with good, sound, positive reasons, why it is necessary and what it will be useful for.
  Mr. Gower: All that has been argued at great length, at other times and in other places, and it would be out of order at this stage for me to deploy the full argument for this system. We are here arguing the merits of this kind of registration. I agree with the hon. Member, as I think did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that some of the words deserve further examination. An example is the words in Clause 64(4),
  "… and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration …"
  I should like to see those words taken from the Bill and something more precise substituted. This could also apply to the words quoted by the hon. Member for Norwood, in subsection (2):
  "Any such application shall be made in such form and manner as the registrar may require."
  I would favour some more precise definition there. If my hon. and learned Friend can evolve some more accurate wording, that would be an advantage.
  The system of registration which we will have can have some value—indeed, it would be senseless to introduce it otherwise—only if it places a registered union in a position different from that of an unregistered union.
  Both hon. Members oposite who have spoken queried suggestions—by whom, I do not know—that the T.U.C. had in the past usurped some unreasonable privileges. Those suggestions have not come from this side. The so-called privileges or powers of the T.U.C. have been merely those which individual unions have been prepared to grant that body, and in that sense it may be said that there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with the privileges or the powers
  552
  which unions may be prepared to give to the T.U.C. There is nothing in the Bill to diminish those privileges or powers. There is nothing in this system of registration, because as I understand it registered or unregistered unions could be members of the T.U.C. in future. They certainly could be members of a common Congress upon which they could confer rights and powers.
  The hon. Member for Norwood said that this was legal claptrap and that it will not improve industrial relations. We are not seeking to improve industrial relations solely by legal terminology. There cannot be an accurate system of registration without legal terminology. It would be unreasonable to suggest that there should not be detailed requirements. Many of the requirements specified in the ensuing subsections are for the benefit of individual trade unionists. They are not designed for the benefit of anybody else. They are designed to ensure that registration shall be efficient and effective and a detailed system of registration requires, not legal claptrap, but detailed legal language of this kind.
  Mr. C. Pannell: To the extent that the hon. Gentleman arguing that everything in the requirement to register is to the advantage of trade unions he is, by his own reasoning, conceding that failure to register imposes a comparable disadvantage on trade unions. The whole question therefore is: should trade unions register? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the first things that Hitler did was to transfer the trade unions over to State authority? That theme runs throughout all authoritarian countries.
  Mr. Gower: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who has such great experience, should introduce a comparison with Hitler; it is so unworthy in the context of this Parliament.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Mussolini, then.
  Mr. Gower: Those comparisons are unworthy in the context of this legislation and of my right hon. Friend. This is not, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, an assault on the rights of association. It is designed to make association more accurate——
  Mr. C. Pannell: Ineffective.
  Mr. Gower: —and more effective and more designed to achieve the maximum improvement in the running of industry and relations between the parties in industry. It is not an assault on the right of association, but an attempt to make association more fruitful in the future.
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Stanley Atkinson. [Laughter]. It is a question of dual personality. Mr. Norman Atkinson.
  Mr. Atkinson: I have suffered or enjoyed this dual personality for many years. In fact, the friends "Norman Orme" and "Stanley Atkinson" have been involved in A.E.U. schools and struggles for 25 years. For 20 of those years "Norman Orme" and I have been debating and discussing in various schools similar Bills to this and some of the provisions which we are now discussing. I see one or two members on this side of the Committee who have been involved in exactly the same discussion for about 15 years. We all seem to be a kind of rent-a-crowd, discussing exactly the same issues.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dar-wen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and six of his colleagues on that side were at one time leading members of the Labour Party and they signed a constitution which was to the exact opposite effect of what is implied in Schedule 3. The passage of time has taken the hon. and learned Gentleman and six of his colleagues, including one member of the Government, out of that commitment and they are now arguing exactly the opposite; they are now arguing for the annihilation of the Labour Party/trade union arrangement.
  "Stanley Atkinson" and "Norman Orme" have remained consistent to the arguments we used when we rejected the original proposals concerning registration and State intervention in the formulation of trade union rules.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: We are interested in who the six are, because some of my hon. Friends might wish to have a debate on this. We should like to know the names.
  Mr. Atkinson: I have much to say and I want to deal with some fundamental
  554
  principles. We have in the House of Commons the equivalent of the "Guinness Book of Records". My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will find spelled out in that book the political history—"Zoology" is perhaps a better word—of hon. Members. My hon. Friend will find set out there what has happened over the years to certain hon. Members opposite, including one or two of the younger members of the Government.
  I want to take up the hon. and learned Gentleman's description of these matters as "novel aspects". The Solicitor-General has also used the word "novel". Novel they may be, but they are totally unacceptable. It is because of this Clause that trade unions will decide not to register.
  Another facet of the argument against the Bill is that the Prime Minister, the Minister of State for Employment, the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of State for Employment who is now on the Front Bench, do not understand industrial relations and are not familiar with industrial practice.
  That may be true, but it is not the point. We would mislead people if we sought to convey the impression that the Bill has not been compiled with a great deal of knowledge behind it. It has. Those who have been associated with the design and the construction of the Bill have had tremendous experience as employers' representatives, either legal or otherwise; and, as a result of their many years of experience, they have come to certain conclusions and therefore they have spelled out with great accuracy in the Bill the best way of clobbering the shop stewards' movement. This Clause taken in conjunction with Schedule 3 is intended to do that.
  A trade union that does not register will be vulnerable in the courts because of the repeal of the 1906 Act. Non-registration dramatically affects the finances of trade unions. The A.U.E.W. and the Transport and General Workers' Union are faced with a tax problem if they decide to contract out of registration. In the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union, it is estimated that it would have to pay an additional annual sum of up to £750,000. In the case of the A.U.E.W., the accountants estimate that we should have to pay about £600,000 in tax equivalent if we were

  555
  non-registered, and assuming that we were no longer able as an organisation to register with the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  5.0 p.m.
  Plainly, a great deal of money is involved for our funds. The Government know that. They know what they are doing when they talk about the consequences of non-registration. They will apply right across the board, and particularly to those unions which have property and superannuation funds; they will become extremely vulnerable. We are, therefore, well conscious of the consequences of non-registration, and especially the financial consequences.
  It is not a question of whether one registers or not. Under the Bill as it stands, every trade union will be automatically registered. In fact, there is continuity between the existing Register of Friendly Societies and the register under the Bill. Therefore, every trade union must decide whether to contract out of its registration after three months. The point of the period of three months is that this offers the only practical way of rewriting the rule book of every union. One can do it no other way if one wishes effectively to rewrite the rule books of the trade union movement. That is what we are now discussing, and that is why I refer to the intentions of employers' representatives when they have tried to devise a method of effectively rewriting the rule books and bringing them into line with the legally enforceable procedures which one finds spelled out throughout the Bill.
  This is an absolute "must". If the Government wish to achieve the objective which they have spelled out, there must be agreement between the requirements of union rule books and the procedures enforceable either by the C.I.R. or by the National Industrial Relations Court. There must be agreement at all levels on these aspects of functions which stem from the Bill.
  The difficulty in the rewriting of the rule books lies in the complication of the law. This is why the Bill has 150 Clauses and all these Schedules. It is a most complicated operation. There are five hon. Members here who, back in 1957, together listened to a discussion
  556
  about how complicated was the process of bringing the law or legally enforceable procedures in industrial relations and union rule books into line. We were never in favour of doing it, but we listened to the arguments advanced by all sorts of employers' representatives and academic groups who were talking about the possibility of doing it.
  It has always been recognised that it would be a most complicated business, and, in that sense, I am surprised at the brevity of the Bill. One might almost describe the Bill as like an Agatha Christie novel in its length and complication, with the murder of a shop steward in every Clause. It reads with a continuity and mystery of that kind, and the complication and mystery come from the complexities in trying to alter union rule books.
  I shall illustrate my argument by reference to what happens at present in manufacturing industry, referring for this purpose to what we often call in engineering the pyramid agreement. As I am anxious to quote directly from the opening passage of that notable employer-trade union agreement, the York Agreement, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) will be kind enough to find the passage for me. It is directly germane to what we are discussing in considering whether it is possible for some unions to register and alter their rule books.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: In the natural break while that quotation is being found, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind to say a little more about the financial penalties to which he refers. I take it that they are not the penalties referred to in "In Place of Strife" which would operate if a union did not register. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking of other financial penalties. They are not mentioned in the T.U.C. document "Reason" as one of the arguments against the registration proposals. What are they?
  Mr. Atkinson: I was pointing out that there would be a cost to the trade unions for not registering. This has not been discussed so by the T.U.C. but it has been discussed in each individual union. The unions have to make up their minds how vulnerable they are and how exposed

  557
  their funds will be. They have to try to devise a watertight method of transferring their property, strike fund and various other moneys out of the union as we now know it, salting them away, as it were, so that they are not vulnerable to any decision which a court may subsequently take against them.
  In other words, the unions have to try to protect themselves against the consequences of non-registration. That process is going on. Every union is employing lawyers and other advisers to devise a method of protection. At present, a trade union which is registered as a friendly society has certain tax concession. If it is not registered as a friendly society or the equivalent, a union has to pay full tax on certain funds. I have already said that for the T. & G.W.U. it is estimated that the additional cost will be up to £750,000 a year. The sum I gave for the A.U.E.W. may be more now because the draughtsmen are included in the amalgamation.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It would be as well to illustrate the point by a specific example. The Derbyshire N.U.M., for example, gives every retired miner £74 a year and the total last year was about £74,000. Also, we contributed £47,000 so that retired miners could receive the coal which the Coal board would not give them. All these and other amounts are calculated in such a way—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is almost a speech. Interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Skinner: I am sorry, Mr. Jennings. The Committee ought to have examples of that kind in mind, because what the Government are doing is hitting the very people whom they are supposed to be protecting.
  Mr. Atkinson: Certainly. One would expect the Solicitor-General to wish to assure the Committee that the Register of Friendly Societies will continue as we know it at the moment so that there will be no such vulnerability. I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman has gone into the matter in some detail and has a ready answer. Will the Register of Friendly Societies continue? Will a non-registered union be protected as it is at present? I have given notice of that question to the Solicitor-General, so perhaps
  558
  he will give an answer during the debate. I am not getting much response now, am I? I know that he understands the problem because many of his officials have looked at it and advised people about it.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Instead of waiting for the Solicitor-General to tell him about the Register of Friendly Societies, will the hon. Gentleman read from the York Agreement?
  Mr. Atkinson: Subsection (a) of the preamble says:
  "The employers have the right to manage their establishments and the trade unions have the right to exercise their functions."
  That is a very simple statement. It is a right that the employers are not prepared to forgo, which is why we cannot make any progress in renegotiating that agreement, and why other manufacturing industries cannot come to an agreement about procedures. It is the reason why it is not possible to see a solution to the problem in terms of the law. It is the reason why trade unions are not prepared to submit their rule books to any registrar to have them rewritten by the State, to have a rule book which concedes that point at the very beginning.
  Why is this so important? Why do the employers insist on it, and why have they resisted pressure by trade unions to change it for 48 years? The employers have resisted change in that simple statement in procedural agreements in other industries for more than 50 years, since 1918. I refer to the managerial right, or the right of a person owning property. Under what is called the pyramid agreement in every industry, if a management representative comes into the mill, shop or whatever it is, wanting to change a practice or introduce a new one, the workers' representative, whether he is called a steward or something else, must go through a procedure if a controversy arises. The procedure differs according to whether the dispute is in a mine, factory, mill or something else, but it is roughly called a pyramid arrangement.
  The employer has a right to take a unilateral decision to alter the material, sequence of operations, kind of person employed, machinery and so on. If that decision is contested, the shop steward must tell the foreman that he disagrees. If there is failure to agree between those

  559
  two, the steward goes to the senior foreman or the assistant manager. If there is again failure to agree, they must then bring in the convener or a works committee to discuss the matter with the works manager. It may go to the board, where the employer's representative and the trade union representatives get round the table and have a local conference. If failure to agree continues the dispute goes to York or to other places in the country where employers and trade unions come together at a national level. That is the sort of pyramid arrangement written into most agreements throughout manufacturing.
  The point is that throughout industry people cut corners. When the employer's representative decides to introduce a new method with which the stewards disagree the stewards usually take a shopfloor decision to stop the job, and a dispute exists. The employers have always worried about this. This is what all the discussion is about. It is what the Bill is about—how to stop that happening, to disarm the shop steward at the point where he meets the employer. No trade union has ever been able or willing to write into its rule books that the shop steward should be disarmed at the point where he meets the employer. There is no rule book in British trade unionism which says that a steward must go through a certain procedure. That may seem unbelivable, but it is absolutely true.
  The A.E.U., which is typical of many industrial unions, has resisted pressures to change its rule book to take away from the shop steward the "unofficial" right to stop the job. It has signed many agreements, including the York Agreement in 1922. Every major trade union has an agreement with the employers spelling out in detail a procedure that the shop steward and the works committee must follow. But none of it is in a rule book. We have never yet had an industrial agreement written into a trade union rule book.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Perhaps because I am a bit older than my hon. Friend——
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. It is difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Pannell: I am not usually inarticulate, Mr. Jennings.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am merely stating a fact, that at this end of the Committee it is difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Pannell: Thank you, Mr. Jennings. I am not in that difficulty so far as you are concerned.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the compliment. It is just as well that at times in this place the Chair can be heard. There is not much difficulty in hearing the right hon. Gentleman usually, but either the microphone was not working or he was turning away. I am grateful to him for remedying that defect.
  Mr. Pannell: After those mutual apologies—and I have a very great respect for you, Mr. Jennings—I want to return to the point I was making to my hon. Friend. Will he put in a piece of history? The year 1922 was crucial. It was the year in which the million members of our trade unions were reduced to about 250,000 by unemployment, and we suffered one of the worst lock-outs in history. The conditions then were inflicted on us by the arrogant lash of necessity.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is an eminent historian of working-class history. It is important for a comment like that to be recorded in this context. These points are closely related.
  I should like to deal very briefly with what now faces the trade unions on the matter of procedure and the submission of rule books to be rewritten. The whole question of what the shop steward does in the event of disagreement is very important in industry. The A.E.U. has a rule dealing with the function of shop stewards. As far as I can check, this applies to seven other major trade unions. Oddly enough, in some cases it is rule 13.
  When a trade union definies the function of a shop steward in its rule book it never attempts to write into the rules the agreements between employers and trade unions. They are left out deliberately. To have a legally-enforced system of industrial relations it is necessary to ensure that the rule books do not conflict

  561
  with the decisions of either the C.I.R. or the N.I.R.C. Therefore, it becomes obligatory under the Bill for trade unions to submit their rule books to a Registrar, whose job it will be to vet them and rewrite them in accordance with what the Registrar expects will be the decisions of the C.I.R.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Why has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the matter will not be varied the other way round, that the C.I.R. will not take into account the rules of the trade union?
  Mr. Atkinson: Because I have never believed that a court of law has either the authority or the power to revolutionise the arrangements between capital and labour in this country.
  Mr. Orme: The C.I.R. is not a court of law.
  Mr. Atkinson: A quasi-judicial body or other representative of the State has never overthrown what the employers consider to be a fundamental principle, nor can I envisage this being done. If this were not so we need not worry about the political movements but could depend on the judges carrying out a revolution, shifting the power from capital to labour. We could revolutionise the country via the courts if what the hon. Gentleman suggests is possible or feasible, but the situation is totally different. I do not believe that a revolutionary situation exists in the courts. Therefore, it is fair to assume that, whatever controversy relative to the procedure is involved, whenever a case is referred to the C.I.R. or the court, those quasi-judicial bodies will confirm that section which I have read from the York Agreement.
  This is the whole point about registration. It is why no trade union in these circumstances could submit its rule book to a registrar in order to have him rewrite the rules so that the shop stewards movement is obliged, by the rules of its own movement, to conform with local enforceable procedural agreements which might be suggested by the C.I.R. or some other part of this whole structure of changing industrial relations. It is a fundamental question and this proposal will be resisted with everything we have in the trade union movement. This is what the issue is about and I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will get
  562
  away from the principle of demanding that a condition for free trade unions to continue must be that they submit their rule books to a Registrar so that the State can rewrite them. That principle is totally unacceptable to the trade union movement.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) with interest but mounting perplexity. He says that this is the heart of the Bill. But he has the whole clause wrong. It is a case of the chicken and the egg. He argued that the chicken comes first. The egg comes first, obviously. The whole point is that one starts with the trade union's rules and that the C.I.R. examines the agreement subsequently and will have to take account of what those rules are. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that that is the right way round. The whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Bill is on a false foundation.
  I have one small perplexing question to put to my hon. and learned Friend. Why is Schedule 3 separate from Clause 61? Why does one have to look at Clause 61 for part of the required trade union rules and at Schedule 3 for the balance? Why should they not all be in one place in the Bill, which would make it so much simpler for mortals to understand? Someone has said that trade union rule books are more confusing than the law. There was a lot of wisdom in that remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said it?"] The right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), who was Minister of Labour in the last Government. In the Standing Committee considering the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, he said:
  "… I can tell him that I find trade union rule books more confusing than the law sometimes."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 25th March, 1965; c. 120.]
  So we have good authority for noting that some trade union rule books are a little confusing. I have been looking at the rule book of the National Union of Printing, Bookbinding and Paperworkers and it demonstrates to the Committee one of the needs for this part of the Bill. Under Rule 27, a member is liable
  "… to exclusion from the Union, a fine not exceeding £20, or a warning, as the Branch Committee may determine:
  (a) If having insulted any officer or member, or otherwise abused them"—

  563
  they are very sensitive officers, not to mention gentlemen—
  "either at meetings of the Union or elsewhere"—
  in the pub having a drink afterwards—
  "by charging them with any act of injustice or improper conduct as to the discharge of their duties which they cannot prove."
  Fair enough. So this sensitive organisation finds that one of its officers has been insulted. What happens then? The following rule becomes operative—that the member can appeal. But before he can appeal, if the appeal is against a fine,
  "… no member shall have the right to appeal without previously having paid the fine within 28 days."
  So having insulted these highly sensitive gentlemen—these officers or members of the union—the member is liable to a fine of £20 and has to pay it before he can make his appeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is arrears."] It is nothing to do with arrears. [HON. MEMBERS: "YOU know nothing about it."] I am quoting from the rule book. It is Rule 24. Hon. Members can see the book if they want to. That is what the rules say.
  Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Rule 14 of the same book, to which the attention of a number of my constituents was drawn in relation to the instruction to cease work on 8th December, states that if they do not obey union instructions they are liable to a fine of £25.
  Mr. Mitchell: I notice that hon. Members opposite are restive. The Committee is beginning to understand that some aspects of trade union rule books require looking into.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham said that there was difficulty for trade unions in bringing their rules into line with the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke about jumping through the hoop. Do trade union rules require modernisation? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) keeps interrupting from a sedentary position. [HON" MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman will not give way."] He has not asked me to give way. [Interruption.] Do the rules require modernisation?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. This is getting noisy. If hon. Members want to interrupt—
  564
  [Interruption.]—let me finish, please—they can at least try to persuade the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to give way. If he does not, then he must be allowed to go on with his speech, and must not be interrupted from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) might as well learn the lesson early not to interrupt the Chair from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings. Can you advise us on the customs and practice whereby an hon. Member who continually asks questions of hon. Members while making his speech but refuses to give way when someone tries to answer them?
  The Temporary Chairman: The rules of debate are quite wide. There is a lot of give and take. Let us take as well as give and we shall get on all right.
  Mr. Mitchell: I have given way twice. The hon. Member for West Ham, North, sought to intervene from a sedentary position. He has not asked me to give way to him. I shall be happy to give way to him if he does. I give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).
  Mr. John Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as a matter of history, that such rules as these are based on the rules appertaining in the professions? Is he aware that, as in any organisation in which there is democratic control, the rule book must insist that discussion about union business be conducted in a parliamentary fashion, which excludes personal abuse, whether it be in the public house or outside it?
  Mr. Mitchell: When I was a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, I do not recall its meetings normally being conducted in the parliamentary manner the hon. Gentleman has just described. Clearly, in the last six or seven years since I ceased to be a member, there has been a substantial change in the way in which business is conducted. [Interruption.]
  5.30 p.m.
  We have to consider whether trade union rules in fact require modernisation.

  565
  Recently, one of the most exhaustive studies of trade union rules ever made disclosed a need for all unions to examine their rules. [Interruption.] It disclosed a need for action in a whole series of matters.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Member quoting from the Donovan Report? Was that the exhaustive study?
  Mr. Ashton: It is Ray Gunter again.
  Mr. Mitchell: The exhaustive study was carried out by the T.U.C. It disclosed the need for action on a list of things. There was admission to membership; the Bill provides that there should be action on membership and no arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination. Do opponents of the Bill suggest that there should be arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination against an applicant for membership? Of course they do not. All the Bill seeks to do is to raise the standards of the minority to that which already exists in the best trade unions.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: It is for the hon. Member to prove that such action is taken now, that there is arbitrary action against certain people. If it exists, where is it?
  Mr. Mitchell: From the example which I have already given hon. Members will see that we have hit upon a dusty corner which needs modernising.
  The T.U.C. went on to say that action should be taken about appeals against refusal to admit. One of the things which the T.U.C. said should be considered was strike procedures, and the Bill provides that the rules must specify who shall have power to call a strike. The T.U.C. also dealt with the responsibilities of shop stewards, as does the Bill. Very rightly, the T.U.C. saw the need for all unions to look at their rules about discipline.
  I ask hon. Members to look at the kangaroo courts and the way in which, by ensuring that charges are in writing and that there is a fair hearing and that the result is given in writing, the Bill will ensure that kangaroo courts cannot be repeated.
  Hon. Members: What kangaroo courts?
  Mr. Mitchell: The most recent has been in the last few weeks when we have had further definite examples of the need for the Bill.
  Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman mentions kangaroo courts. Would he define them and say in what strata of society he believes them to operate?
  Mr. Mitchell: I use the phrase "kangaroo court" in the colloquial sense in which it has been used in the headlines of the newspapers in recent weeks—[Interruption.]—newspapers which from time to time support the Government, but also those which support the Labour Party [Interruption.]
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): According to a previous Ruling, this may be a wide debate, but the subject of kangaroo courts could open the flood gates. A passing reference to them would be in order, but to go into the labyrinths of that subject would take us well outside the Amendment and the Schedule.
  Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Jennings, I am not sure that referring to a kangaroo court is not in order, because Parliament has certain forms of closure—the guillotine and the kangaroo, which leaps from one Clause to another and back, which is what the debate is doing. It will all end with one vote at the end of the day. In the time of Mr. Speaker Brand and in the time of Mr. Speaker Peel it came to be a well-known device. On the other hand, I believe that the hon. Member is under an obligation in a debate fraught with so much emotion to define his terms. He does not know what a kangaroo is. Is he using it in a parliamentary sense?
  The Temporary Chairman: The word "kangaroo" in the sense in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is using it is a procedural kangaroo. The word "kangaroo" as used by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is an industrial kangaroo. While the procedural kangaroo would be perfectly in order in the Committee and in the House, I am ruling that it would be beyond the limits of the debate to range too widely about the industrial kangaroo.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. David Mitchell: I have given way a substantial number of times, but I can never resist the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Presumably the hon. Gentleman is referring to the exercise of disciplinary machinery by shop stewards and/or other workers at factory level. I remind him of our debates on Clause 33 when I pointed out, without rebuttal from the Government, that that Clause made factory agreements legally binding in certain circumstances and Clause 34 would impose on shop stewards, or others who have entered into those agreements, a policing responsibility. In other words, the Bill and nothing else is compelling the introduction of precisely the kind of machinery which presumably the hon. Member is condemning.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am condemning not the sort of activities to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the secret trials without adequate rights of appeal which have occurred on a number of occasions. The example which I gave earlier was that of a man having to pay a fine of up to £20 before his appeal could be heard. That seems to be a breach of common justice.
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that we have had enough of this aspect. I hope that the hon. Member for Basing-stoke will now come to the next point in his speech, for otherwise we shall get into very dangerous waters.
  Mr. Mitchell: I have been on my feet for rather longer than I intended—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear:]—but HANSARD will show that I have not been speaking for much of that time and that Labour Members have insisted on interrupting.
  I have said very little on the subject of the debate this afternoon—union rules.
  The Temporary Chairman: That is what I am waiting for.
  Mr. Mitchell: If I can get through without another interruption, I shall do my best.
  The T.U.C. spoke of the need for proper procedures to safeguard the rights of the individual, to give prior notice and
  568
  a fair hearing, and the Bill follows the same lines by laying down that there must be writ ten notice of the charges and a fair hearing. One sees a continuing similarity between the requirements of the T.U.C., which had no power to enforce them, and the requirements of the Bill.
  I should like my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to examine the Clause for what I believe to be a small defect. It does not provide for a right of appeal to a committee different and separate from the body which imposed the original disciplinary sentence. The best existing trade unions provide an appeal procedure by which the appeal is put to a committee other than that which imposed the original sentence, which is right and proper, but there are some 50 unions which do not have such a procedure and where the appeal is heard by the body which imposed the original sentence. That is not right, fair or just and the Pill should do something about it. I recommend my hon. and learned Friend to extend the requirements of a trade union's rules to ensure that they provide for a body to hear an appeal separate from that which imposed the original sentence.
  The Bill seeks to raise the standards of the minority to embody in their rules the standards of the best.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): I resist the temptation to call Mr. Norman Orme and I call instead Mr. Stanley Orme.
  Mr. Orme: That is kind of you, Mr. Jennings. Perhaps we may return to the serious aspect of this debate, which has been lost in the highways and byways of the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). All that we have had from him are innuendoes against trade unions and the trade union movement.
  Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell rose——
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will not give way, the hon. Gentleman must not persist.
  Mr. Mitchell: I gave way.
  Mr. Orme Mr. Orme rose——
  Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make charges against another hon. Member and not to allow him to reply?
  The Temporary Chairman: The charge made was one of an hon. Member indulging in innuendo. If that is the worst charge that can be made against an hon. Member then we are doing very well. There is no obligation on the hon. Member to give way after having made that statement.
  Mr. Orme: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mitchell: Shame.
  Mr. Orme: After what he had said, if he cannot take a little bit back then he is a poor Parliamentarian and he will have to learn. I am not known for discourtesy, but the hon. Gentleman has shown some discourtesy towards the trade union movement and we are a little sick of it on this side of the Committee.
  To return to the debate and this question of registration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) have said, this is a central issue of the Bill. It is through the form of registration, the right to impose rule changes and the framing of the rules required by the registrar that it will be possible to carry out the other punitive Clauses in the Bill. At the moment a trade union does not need a State licence to operate, because we are in a democratic situation.
  There may be weaknesses within the trade union movement and no hon. Member on this side has tried to hide the fact that there are difficulties and problems. It is interesting that hon. Members opposite have had a great deal of difficulty in highlighting the real problems. They were challenged yesterday about demarcation and today about union rules but they have not come forward with what can be regarded as concrete objections. If the objections we have here are the main charges against trade unions then there is no need to introduce this Measure with this form of compulsory registration.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman's argument reminds me of something which I personally dislike, namely, the Ministry of Transport reply on a road problem:
  570
  "This is a very dangerous corner but no one had actually been killed yet so we will not take any action."
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Member made a statement earlier about trade unions and disciplinary action and he has just made another which is just as irresponsible. He ought to learn, when we are talking about a matter affecting millions of people, to act in a reasonable manner and not like his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke who throws innuendoes about the Committee.
  Mr. Victor Feather has said in the foreword to the T.U.C. document "Reason" that the unions have never been above the law, have always worked within the law and that the law has conferred no privileges upon them nor have they sought such privileges. The trade union movement throughout its long history has grown with our democracy and is one of the bedrocks of that democracy. Now it is said that the trade union movement is so irresponsible that it must have rules which allow the C.I.R., whether quasi-judicial or otherwise, the industrial court, judges and lawyers to impose what they think ought to be the rules, disregarding the fact that trade union members act responsibly providing their own rules and democratic structure.
  5.45 p.m.
  As hon. Members know I am a member of one of the largest unions in the country, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, with something like 1,200,000 members. That union had its beginnings in 1851, 20 years before the 1871 Act in which voluntary registration was allowed. Most unions today are registered under that Act, which imposes no restriction on a trade union and which works in a sensible manner. My trade union has, over a time, built up a measure of democracy which I would claim is second to none. This democracy is based on the rule book of the union, which I have here, which puts the power of the union in the hands of the membership.
  Its officers are democratically elected by ballot; it has a national committee which makes policy through the rank and file members and, more important. if any member feels that he has any grievance

  571
  against the executive council or any full-time officer, he has a direct right of appeal from his branch, without being restricted by the executive council, to the final appeal court which comprises 11 rank and file members elected by the membership. The only full-time officer who attends that appeal court is the general secretary and he has no vote. That body elects its own chairman and sometimes meets for as much as two or three weeks a year to hear appeals on what are most simple matters but for the individual concerned most important matters. When the procedure has been exhausted no member of our union who has used it, who is fully paid up, can claim that he has not been dealt with justly or that he has been denied a right of appeal.
  When we have established such a democratic procedure it is highly insulting to be told that we must be registered, our rules must be examined, changes may be imposed upon us, not by our membership but by a form of law which brings about a corporate mentality, a corporate State philosophy. One of my hon. Friends mentioned Germany in the 'thirties. This action more readily brings to mind Mussolini and the acts which took place in Italy. This brings about a corporate mentality which removes the true independence of the trade union. An independent trade union, not beyond the law, but operating within it, is a pillar of democracy.
  The Solicitor-General is fathering a Bill which is an absolute disgrace. This is an anti-trade union Clause and it will be resisted by the trade union movement.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rules about appeals against disciplinary action within the union to which he has referred are an exemplary example to other unions and to the country of how these matters should be handled? But would he not equally agree that it is wrong that other unions should have standards which fall far below those which he has described?
  Mr. Orme: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but he has put the argument in a different way. We do not put ourselves forward as paragons of virtue. I have said that the trade unions are not perfect. The T.U.C. and its
  572
  recommendations have been quoted, but the point has been missed.
  We say that this is a matter for the trade union movement and for voluntary application. Everything which the trade union movement does is done under the searchlight of the mass media. Things which need changing are being changed continually in the trade union movement. It is the right of the movement to examine itself. It co-operated in the Donovan Report. I was not in complete agreement with the Donovan proposals, but the recommendation about registration in Donovan was that there should be a registrar with two trade unionists appointed by the T.U.C. That is not the recommendation made by the Solicitor-General in this Bill.
  After three years of searching inquiry, the recommendation in the Donovan Report, with one or two contradictions which were all recognised, was that the trade union movement was, and should remain, a voluntary movement. Mr. Victor Feather and the General Council of the T.U.C. are aware of their responsibilities. They want better agreements to be made and they want trade unions to have better rule books if they are necessary. But, in view of the amalgamations of trade unions which are taking place, one would be hard put to find many rule books which were not satisfactory from a democratic point of view. But the members have the right to change those rule books, as they have the right to change the officers of the union. Quite drastic changes in the rules and the leadership of trade unions have been made through the democratic method and process.
  Mr. Gower: I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his case, but if all is well as he has described it, why did the Labour Government go far beyond contemplating and even prepared legislation?
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that matter, but it is interesting that the T.U.C. and the trade union movement were able to convince the Government that they were capable of carrying out any necessary reforms and reorganisation.
  This debate on the question of licensing trade unions is fundamental to the

  573
  trade union movement. It is at the core of what the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State are introducing. The challenge will be thrown down and the trade union movement will be faced with the harrowing choice of registering or not registering, with all the penalties which can be imposed for not registering. The decision of my union is that it is not prepared to co-operate. It does not believe that its rules and conduct are inferior to what is suggested in the Bill. It thinks the Bill insulting. It is opposed to it and will fight it. I hope that we shall return much sooner than some people think to sanity in industrial relations and that we shall tackle the problems which need to be tackled.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I hope that the Committee, and particularly hon. Members opposite, will understand that Members have conflicting duties and that it is only those duties which prevented me from being able to attend the debate from the beginning. I hope that it will not be thought discourteous of me that I was unable to be present in the Chamber for some time.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will not take it amiss if I say that I have a great deal of personal sympathy with what he said. When I have listened to him and his hon. Friends on this subject, they have reminded me of nothing so much as some of my hon. Friends who have been aroused to equally sincere and deep passion on such matters as Rhodesia and others which went deep to the heart of their beliefs. I understand how the hon. Member for Salford, West feels. I do not think I misrepresent him when I say that to him the Bill and the provisions in it about the registration of trade unions are an outrage and an insult. They seem to him totally unnecessary and cast a reflection on institutions which are as dear and sacrosanct and as much above criticism to him as are the Brigade of Guards and other similar institutions in the hearts of some of my hon. Friends.
  I ask hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] I dare say the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is waving his Guards' tie, will understand, because his sympathies are obviously widespread. He realises how deep loyalties go, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not sneer at me or
  574
  deride what I am saying because, although I am not passionately attached to the loyalties of the hon. Member for Salford, West, I do know that they are sincere and that in debating the Bill we are, in a sense, beyond reason and beyond argument. I do not think that that is altogether dishonourable and undesirable.
  However, I hope that it will not be thought quite intolerable by hon. Members opposite if I say with great respect that there is another point of view about this matter. It may be wrong and unfair, but—[Interruption.] It is the opinion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who we all know feels very deeply about this matter, that the Bill is unfair and outrageous. There are other people, misguided though they may be in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, who welcome this legislation. I do not want to put the boot in, because possibly more than enough of that has been done from this side, but it is true that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were capable of entertaining this possibility, although later, as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, they were brought to think better of it. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not being brought to think better of it by the hon. Member for Salford, West.
  It is one of the brutal realities of life that there comes a time when argument is over and one of two things has to supervene: either voting or shooting. We in this country have a prejudice in favour of voting. The voting on this issue is not only the voting that will take place in Committee and in the House on this Bill. The voting that determines the issues in the Bill took place when the entire electorate had an opportunity of making its opinion known.
  There is a vast swathe of the electorate, with whom hon. Members opposite do not seem to be in sympathy, who greatly welcome the Bill. They do not think it an outrage. They feel that these provisions are right.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that a great section of the electorate was in favour of this Bill but is it not a fact that 68 per cent. of the electorate did not vote for the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Iremonger: Of course. The hon. Gentleman has not been actively engaged in public life for as long as he has without having had to come to terms with this question whether authentic authority was given to the party which commanded a majority in an election to enable it to carry out its legislative programme. This, of course, is a fundamental question. It can be argued, and is sometimes argued by Oppositions, that Governments on that ground are not entitled to carry out their programme; but such an argument is a two-edged weapon.
  Mr. Sillars: Life is difficult for hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but is the hon. Member aware that a salient feature of the present Bill was not put before the electorate—and that is the question of the imposition of agreements although both sides did not want them?
  Mr. Iremonger: That is an arguable matter. I think that it would not be in order to argue that issue of enforceability of agreements on this Amendment. We are at the moment talking about registration which as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, is central to the Bill. He and I agree on that. We disagree whether it is right or fair and whether it is desirable.
  My view that it is right and fair is not new-found. I moved a Motion for leave to introduce into the House on 31st July, 1957 a Bill which was almost exactly the same as this Section of this Bill, namely to the effect that the rights of trade unions should be dependent upon registration and that registration should be dependent upon unions' rules conforming to certain standards. I was refused leave by the House to introduce that Bill. I was subsequently told by one of my right hon. Friends who was then Patronage Secretary that my initiative was extremely ill-conceived and unwelcome. The then Patronage Secretary is the present Prime Minister.
  I subsequently moved to introduce a Bill in similar terms some years later. I was then told by the then Minister of Labour in the Conservative Government that that was an ill-conceived move and that he would have no part in it. The Minister of Labour at that time is the present Prime
  Minister. Therefore,
  576
  whether I am right or wrong, and whether my right hon. Friend is right now in having been converted to my view, I cannot be charged that I have not been sincere in supporting the substance of this portion of the Bill, for I have manifestly done so for a very long time.
  I represent a constituency of people who would describe themselves as ordinary members of the public who, by and large, are not members of trade unions. They are people who mostly work in service industries and in the City of London. They are the people one finds on the Central Line any afternoon. Probably now at this time they are coming towards the end of their journeys home.
  The Chairman: Order. No doubt they are, but they are not the people with whom we are dealing in this Amendment.
  Mr. Iremonger: I hope, Sir Robert, that I am not moving out of order in referring to those people.
  Mr. Orme: The Central Line has been out of order for two months.
  Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps I could make some rather uncharitable remarks on that score if I had a mind to, but I should be out of order. My argument was directed to the fact that the Clause as it stands would command the confidence of people who elected the Conservative Government to pass this legislation. The Amendment should not be accepted because the Clause conforms with the general wishes of the electorate as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West may find what I am about to say offensive, and I can understand why he thinks on those lines, but he should accept this as a valid point. Those people think that whether trade unions have, as I believe, rights, privileges and benefits in their situation, trade unions undoubtedly have substantial and real social economic and political power. I believe that those people are right in believing that, and I do not believe that hon. Members opposite would deny it or say that it was undesirable.
  Moving from the idea in people's minds that a considerable degree of power should be balanced by a considerable degree of responsibility, those people see

  577
  nothing objectionable in the people responsible having a statutory basis for the exercise of their responsibilities in the sense that their power shall be regulated by regulations made by registrars with whom they must register if they are to exercise that power. That is the philosophical and logical basis of this part of the Bill, which has substantial public support. The hon. Member for Salford, West need not feel that the dignity or authority of his union or of any other union would be in any way impugned if the way in which it conducts its affairs, now voluntarily, were backed by legislation such as this. I do not see why hon. Gentlemen should think it so outrageous. Why should not trade unions register according to certain guiding principles for organisations of workers such as are set out in Clause 61, to which we shall be coming—[Interruption.] I did not hear that. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene——
  The Chairman: Order. I think that it would be better for everyone if the hon. Gentleman made his speech in his own way without seeking inspiration.
  Mr. Ashton: Too long.
  Mr. Iremonger: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Walton would answer the question to which we on this side find no answer at all. What is so wrong with these principles, in accordance with which trade unions should be required to register? Hon. Members opposite boast, proudly, and quite rightly, that unions in the main conduct their affairs in accordance with these principles. Nobody has said why they should not register if they conduct their affairs in accordance with these principles.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) opening the debate, explained in great detail——
  Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) was not here.
  Mr. Heffer: —why the Opposition opposed the Government's policy of registration, and he clearly put forward the trade unions objections to it. The hon.
  578
  Member for Ilford, North was not in the Chamber at the time. I believe that he is wasting the time of the Committee.
  The Chairman: Order. That is for the Committee to judge. All I have to judge is whether the hon. Gentleman stays in order. I am trying to watch that.
  Mr. Iremonger: I know that had I been in the least out of order you, Sir Robert, would have assisted me to return to it.
  My argument is that these Amendments should be resisted because they are against the principle of registration of unions, which is necessary in my view if they are to have public confidence as conducting their affairs in the way in which they should conduct them, if they are to exercise the power which greatly affects the lives of ordinary people. I remain entirely unconvinced by everything which I have heard, especially from the hon. Member for Salford, West, who seemed to be putting forward substantial arguments in favour of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Gentleman said that trade unions organise themselves in a proper manner without the assistance of the law and that it is in some way insulting that those who do not so organise themselves should be required to register. I am sure that when it comes to judging between the Opposition and the Government on this issue, the electorate will give the same answer in future as it gave in the past—namely, that it is high time that the trade union movement was brought to a sense of responsibility such as is exercised by the best trade unions, of which the union of the hon. Member for Salford, West is an example.
  I am sure that the Committee will reject the Amendments and that it will be right to do so.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. C. Pannell: I have not spoken on the Bill since I spoke against the guillotine Motion. However, I made it clear at that time that the reason, above all others, for my objection was the central matter of registration.
  There has been no lack of speakers. Over 22 years I have had plenty of time to speak in the House, but I feel it my duty to reaffirm now the conviction which I have held, with increasing ratio, over so many years.

  579
  When I referred my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) to a matter of history, it was not so much academic history as something in which I took part. If I may address the Solicitor-General, the great dispute of 1922 was about managerial functions and the idea that employers had the right to do what they liked. We were locked out for four months. We had no voice then regarding the manning of machines, wage rates, or anything else. That kind of view of employers, which was inflicted at a time of great adversity for the trade union movement, is still held today. This is fundamental.
  The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) thought it was an irrelevancy when I intervened to point out what took place in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. I should like to read a section from Mussolini's Labour Law. I do not mean to be insulting, but I note that the Solicitor-General has left the Chamber. The Italian Labour Charter of 21st April, 1927, states that syndica—which means trade union—associations are free, but only those syndicates which are recognised by law and subject to the control of the State have the right to represent legally the whole category of employers or employees for which they are established.
  It is bureaucratic language—the usual gobbledegook which might come from any Government Bill, but particularly from this one. Of course, this runs through the Bill.
  I believe that proposals for registration ensure that trade unions become part of the State apparat—no longer free voluntary associations, but at the diktat of lawyers who take a certain view of human relations. This is my fundamental objection. It even supervenes the principles put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).
  I recognise the vote of 18th June. But that election was not won or lost on this legislation.
  Mr. Gower: I said that it was not a fair comparison and that it could be illustrated by referring the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 114 which states that no court shall order any specific performance of a contract of employment or an injunction or compel an employee to do any
  580
  work at all. In Germany or Italy at that time it would have been quite the opposite. The two kinds of law, if the right hon. Gentleman so describes it, are completely incompatible.
  Mr. Pannell: The Clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred is rendered completely nugatory by the register. It does not matter how it is achieved. We have only to look at what is lost through the Bill. The Trade Union Act, 1871 states:
  "The advantages which a registered trade union has over an unregistered one are as follows."
  I am reading here from a real authority, Citrine, who, after all, proved that one did not need to be a lawyer to be an advocate.
  "(1) A registered trade union is entitled to exemption from income tax under Schedules C and D in respect of interest and dividends which are applicable and applied solely for the purpose of provident benefits.'"
  Presumably that would be lost by my union if it failed to register. I am told that failure to register by one big trade union will cost over £500,000. Let us not underrate what is at stake in regard to registration.
  "(2) On a change of trustees of a registered trade union the land and other property of the union which is vested in them (other than stock in the public funds) automatically vests in the succeeding trustees".
  That is lost. Registration lays the trade union movement open to considerable risk of litigation.
  "(3) The members of a registered trade union may dispose at death of sums payable by the union, not exceeding prescribed limits, by means of a mere written nomination."
  All that goes. More litigation. When one goes over to lawyers, it is not only the Registrar of Friendly Societies who believes in a healthy idea of spreading the environment of his own trade, its productivity and profitability—but all those who will be appointed under him.
  There is a whole list of other things. It goes on to say:
  "The treasurers and other officers of a registered trade union are legally bound to render accounts and to deliver up to the trustees all property and effects in their hands or custody on being required to do so, and may be compelled to do so by any competent court."
  That shows how much, under the present legislation, trade unions are under some form of control.

  581
  If the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) were here I should take him up on this point, because I understand that he is the Chairman of the National Advisory Council of a Conservative trade union. Being a registered trade union gives the union a certain autonomy to inflict fines according to the rules. In my trade union, which is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), before a person becomes a member of it he is given a book of rules to study for a fortnight, and he is asked questions before steps are taken to proceed with his initiation. I believe that my hon. Friend is a little out of date in the history, because in fact the union goes back far beyond 1851. It goes back to 1826, to the old boilermakers' trade union, and I could, in fact, take it back to 1780.
  A person wishing to join my union is asked whether he has read the rules, having been given a fortnight to do so. It might interest the Committee to know that on one occasion when the president of our union was dismissed by the final appeal court Lord Goddard asked, "Did you read the rules when you joined the organisation?", and on that simple question the president lost his job, because he was required to know the rules, and anybody who joins my trade union knows that if he outrages the rules he is subject to fines.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke made some point about paying a fine pending appeal. There is a distinguished lawyer here. Everyone knows that when one goes to court to take part in litigation it is often necessary to deposit a considerable sum of money pending the outcome of an appeal. Anybody who has had experience of litigation knows that.
  Mr. Orme: It does not apply to this union.
  Mr. Pannell: I am referring to what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said. I do not know about the "kangaroo" court. The hon. Gentleman was complaining that a trade union, or rather the district committee of a trade union, according to its rules, perfectly legally, fined a member and said that the person had to deposit £25 pending an appeal. I have never known that in my trade union. I have known that in my trade union, when a
  582
  recalcitrant member has failed to pay a properly imposed fine, the sum has been debited against him on his card, and he has gone into arrears with his payments.
  When I spoke to the House during the debate on the guillotine Motion I quoted from an article in The Times of 27th January, and perhaps I might quote it again, because it puts the matter very succinctly. It says:
  "This is more than a nominal degradation"—
  It is a degradation of the status of trade unions—
  "The present definition of a trade union, in the Act of 1913, is 'any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects … the regulations of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and also the provision of benefits to members'."
  That is vital, and the whole of the 1871 and 1906 Acts defining union immunities are repealed. This is a substantial step and it was on this ground that I objected to the guillotine.
  The registration of trade unions deserves an Act of Parliament all of its own. This is so wide and the consequences so great and so misunderstood by hon. Gentlemen opposite that these provisions deserve a Bill of their own, a Second Reading. a Committee stage upstairs, and all the other stages that are gone through before a Bill becomes law. Here I want to make another protest. This Bill makes the complete case for abolishing the old-fashioned Parliamentary Session which is based on a pastoral society, on the rotation of the crops, spring time and the harvest.
  Instead of bringing things to an abrupt end in November, we ought to be able to take into a new Session any unfinished legislation and complete it then. We ought to be able to do this by a simple reaffirmative process, by a sort of Second Reading. We ought not to be governed by the need for Members who rise for the Summer Recess. The present arrangements were invented by Chief Whips, and ought to be abolished. The Bill is too big to be dealt with in one Session and it ought, therefore, to have much longer consideration.

  583
  I know that there are many hon. Members who wish to address the Committee.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Are there?
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
  Mr. Pannell: I had not seen the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliott) in the Chamber before now.
  Captain Walter Elliot: I did not say a word.
  Mr. Pannell: I thought that the hon. and gallant Member was making grunting noises from a sedentary position. I am sorry that he is doing that, because he and I went to Singapore together——
  Captain W. Elliot: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I never opened my mouth. I never made a sound.
  Mr. Loughlin: It was the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke).
  Mr. Pannell: If a trade union is not registered it can get a certificate to promote a political fund. Will that right be repealed? Everything is being conditioned to the say so of the registrar. I do not want to get out of order, but legal decisions are founded on precedents. This court will follow precedents and deviate only when something does not affect the establishment. I shall not refer to the breach of the Official Secrets Act, but there is no doubt that if Lord Goddard had been presiding, as he was in the Fell case, there would have been a different judgment. These things have to be elastic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham referred to the pyramid arrangements in the engineering industry.
  Mr. Atkinson: In all industries.
  Mr. Pannell: Let me deal with something about which I know. Where there is a failure to agree on the shop floor, there is a confrontation between the shop stewards and the employer at that point. Everybody knows that the procrastinating processes which can be used will lead to innumerable further disputes. Everybody knows that trade unions will not
  584
  give up the right to confront the employer. The whole business of registration is founded on the idea that one can take industrial discontent and somehow lift it into the courts.
  In most disputes the employer claims the right to do something, but the trade unions have always maintained that before progress is made the status quo ante must be restored. If a man has been dismissed, he must be reinstated before discussion about the dispute can go any further. In future such matters will be dealt with by the Registrar, deputy registrars, and so on. This process of registration will prevent a trade union from being a free voluntary movement and make it part of the apparat of the State.
  6.30 p.m.
  Whichever way one looks at it, that is the result at the end of the day. The Solicitor-General should be concerned about what will happen about the consequences of failure to register. It would be a very bold man, or a very bold lawyer employed by a great trade union, who countenanced or gave them the advice not to register. If they knew the consequences of refusing to register, it would be an act of considerable courage if the trade unions said that they would not do so, because courage is the ability to face a problem when one is most afraid of it.
  Two of the great trade unions most affected have said, "We will not register". Will the Government take them on? It will come right down the line to hundreds of thousands of people in factories. That is why there is great protest against the Bill.
  Mr. Tom King: I drew attention to the rule book quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). Perhaps I was a little misunderstood. I was not criticising that rule in itself. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) pointed out that many associations have to include fines in their rules. I was drawing attention to the fact that I thought it relevant to the great point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that there is deep, spontaneous feeling at the grass roots against the Bill, that in this particular mill in my constituency the shop stewards found it necessary to call

  585
  attention to this rule to get that so-called spontaneous feeling expressed.
  Mr. Pannell: I want only to tell the hon. Gentleman what I once told somebody when I was interviewed at an airport when I was a Minister. They asked whether I would comment on an industrial dispute, and I said, "Industrial disputes are like married life. Only the people in it really know what it is all about." Consequently, I should not presume in the Committee to judge a hypothetical case which the hon. Gentleman puts up. I do not know from what it springs. I do not know to what "kangaroo" court the hon. Member for Basingstoke was referring. Like my hon. Friend, I must take responsibility in my own trade union.
  I was once at the wrong end of the stick on an appeal against something which I did as a shop steward. I knew something about that. But we know how complicated human relations are. If it is difficult for me to accept, not the hon. Gentleman's word, but the basis of his case in the Committee, how much more difficult would it be for some Registrar, weeks after the event, to accept the say-so of various witnesses who may not be as literate as the hon. Gentleman? That is the case I put today.
  Mr. Atkinson: A point arises very often from a necessity in trade union branches to dissociate the whole question of delegation from the rules of the branch or union. Very often a resolution is passed in the branch which is able to prevent the union having to pay delegation fees, bus fares and so on to people attending meetings. That is one of the reasons why these resolutions are moved. It is for the opposite reason to that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is not to compel people to go but to prevent the branch having to pay out large sums of money in delegation fees and bus fares when practically every member of a branch is about to attend a rally. That is the reason that some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Basingstoke refers are raised.
  Mr. Pannell: I must resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend to help me through my speech. May I give one example, which I think would not be wasting time? I ran across a dispute
  586
  some years ago when a man in a shop got married—not an unlikely event but a very desirable one. Afterwards he did not like night work, and when he went to the manager, the firm immediately said that he could have all day work. The whole shop went on strike. It was a sensational matter and the newspapers pictured this as somehow unreasonableness and lack of sympathy towards a young married man. But it was not. The newspapers were silent about the fact that the striking workers were on a collective bonus system on the day shift, and every man on the day shift stood to lose 17s. 6d. a week, so they said, "We will not have it." How would that dispute appear when it came before the Registrar three and a half months later?
  Mr. David Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee under which Clause the Registrar would look into such a situation?
  Mr. Pannell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere about that. It shows his innocence in the matter, because this is how great disputes are sparked off. The boys would have come out on strike and they would have been in jeopardy under other Clauses in the Bill.
  Mr. Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman say under which Clause the Registrar of trade unions will be looking at this sort of situation?
  Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that this would come within his scope, eventually it would reach the Registrar if people took a gloomy enough view of a matter such as that. National disputes are started on a great variety of local matters like that. This is the weft and woof of industrial life. We are not dealing with people who have swallowed every dot and comma of the Committee stage of the Bill. Workshop justice is justice, although it may be rough justice. But the Bill would be expensive "justice" and would not achieve justice in the end.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Despite the prolonged teach-in on industrial relations which has been conducted in the Chamber, it is still apparent from this afternoon's debate that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the fundamental nature of trade unionism. I say that with the greatest respect.

  587
  It requires a Member of the Committee such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to offer all of us a glimpse of the essential character of trade unionism, so that we can draw something of its flavour, and perhaps even put our finger on its pulse. This came out during the exchanges two or three minutes ago. With respect, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) had not thought about registration as my right hon. Friend was thinking about it when he was speaking. My right hon. Friend was being emotional, because he knows in his bones something of the impact that this set of Clauses which we are considering—some of which we shall not consider today—will have upon industrial relations.
  He is absolutely right. It is a crucial set of Clauses, from Clause 57 right through to Clause 84. It is Part IV of the Bill. Some hon. Members opposite might think that we are in sight of home, that the great contentious aspects of the Bill are behind us. But some of us think that we have yet to come to the crucial Clauses. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
  Some of us may have a chance to recall through HANSARD tomorrow the contributions made so far in the debate from this side of the Committee. I do not believe for a moment that I can keep up the standard and contribute to the feel for the problems involved which has been demonstrated by them, and the contributions coming from the other side, notably that from the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). When the hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee, I was wondering whether I should be fortunate enough to be called immediately after him. If I had been, I should have had difficulty in commenting on his speech. I have never sought refuge in the time-honoured phrase, "I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument." I should not have known which point to pick up from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which was no more than an elegant piece of waffle. Yet, if we think about registration and what it involves for trade unions and trade unionists, especially at the grass roots level——
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me, and perhaps he
  588
  will address himself to my fundamental question. 'What is there objectionable in the principles of registration to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from the point of view of unions which want to register?
  Mr. Duffy: That is precisely what I hope to do. I was about to say that I would even agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said just now, when he commented that he thought eventually that the registration of trade unionists might result in a corporate state where the liberties not merely of the trade unions were in danger but those of society as a whole.
  The trade unions, among other things in our society, represent one of the bulwarks of our liberties. My right hon. Friend spoke about Hitler, If Hitler and his troops had landed in this country during the last war, they would have met no greater resistance in any part of society than from the ranks of our trade unions, including the shop stewards, whom this provision requiring registration now threatens. That was the experience on the Continent, where the backbone of resistance was provided by shop stewards, most of them Communists, and representatives of the Church.
  I was inclined to believe that the misunderstanding of the situation by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite was due to the way in which one or two of them earlier today likened trade unions to limited companies, and this point came out well in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).
  How can one compare a limited liability company with a trade union? Historically, there has been the greatest possible contrast in constitution between a limited company and a trade union. In the former, all power has always resided at the top, the board of directors, and the lower parts have only been allowed to exercise such powers as the top permits. I have in mind the powers of a branch manager of a Tesco supermarket and those of the chairman of Tesco.
  By contrast, in a trade union all power resides at the roots. The top, the executive, can exercise only the powers specifically given to it by the rules. A branch

  589
  secretary, being appointed by the branch members, can be removed by them. But he can be removed by the executive only if the rules say so. The position varies from union to union, of course, and some are inclined towards authoritarianism. But some still retain their 19th century democratic origins, notably the union represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).
  It was suggested from the benches opposite earlier today that what was good enough for a limited company was good enough for a trade union, and it may be that that explains why we have this provision in the Bill. A number of my hon. Friends have argued in recent days that much of the inspiration for the Bill has come from the United States. However, I believe that the inspiration for this provision to set up a Registrar and lay down his projected role comes from the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956. The model for the provision of a Registrar in this Bill is the Registrar set up by that Act, and perhaps in a moment I might relate the experiences of some members of our society at the hands of that Registrar.
  6.45 p.m.
  Perhaps a further reason why the Government have introduced the Registrar is that, like some of their hon. Friends, they are disposed to liken trade unions to limited companies. However, limited companies were an idea imported from France only 100 years or so ago to fit an existing industrial and commercial need. The trade unions grew out of local societies which, in time, amalgamated with other societies and then joined up on a county and national basis.
  By 1906, it was seen that the growing size of trade unions presented problems. For example, was it right that a local branch in Cornwall, say, which was uncontrolled by the executive should be able by its folly to inflict a penalty on the membership throughout the country? In 1906, this House answered the question in the negative. The Trade Disputes Act, 1906, limited the penalty in most cases to the perpetrator of the folly or his district. That was the effect of Section 4 of that Act, which gave trade unions exemptions from liability in tort—a wrong
  590
  not arising out of a contract—in nearly all cases. That Section allowed trade unions to continue safely with constitutions with power in the roots even though these unions got bigger and bigger.
  Yet we have heard again today the charge that trade unions are privileged at law. We all know that the 1906 Act is to be repealed. However, although most of it is to be re-enacted, Section 4 of it is not. Thus, the penalty for a tort committed in Cornwall will be inflicted on the whole membership. Damages for a libellous newsletter by a Cornish branch secretary will be obtainable from head office funds. What is more, penalties for unfair industrial practice, though committed only by a local branch, will also be recoverable from head office funds, and we know how high those penalties can be.
  In these changed circumstances, one wonders whether there will not be an immediate move towards unions revising their constitutions, regardless of the attitude of the Registrar, so that they have as much control over their branches or shop organisations as the board of directors of Tesco has over its branches. It is hard to see how a union ultimately will be able to afford to do otherwise. They may incorporate parts of the Companies Act, especially Table A, into their constitutions.
  Much attention has been given by the Press, by speakers in the country and in some instances in this House to the penalties under the Bill. We have had to wait until today, and then only in speeches from this side of the Committee, for our attention to be focussed upon this impending compulsion to revise the constitutions of trade unions and all that may flow from it—a revision of rules which in many cases will not be wanted by the unions and which eventually will be insisted upon by the Registrar.
  The crux of these Clauses lies outside what we are discussing, so I must not go further in that direction. However, already we see that Clause 61 and others between them provide the strongest possible disincentives to a union to become or remain unregistered. Any unregistered body which takes part in industrial strife or makes use of the industrial weapon is ipso facto guilty of unfair industrial practice. The industrial

  591
  court is not even able to decide on fact, whether the conduct is fair or unfair. It has to condemn it as unfair by statutory requirement.
  Registration is not automatic. One has to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 3 and Clause 61, which will force upon trade unions certain new features, which some may want but others may not—for example, control from the top over all funds, under Clause 63 (1) (b) or open entry, under Clause 62 (2), or the requirement for no compulsory arbitration which is to be found in Clause 61 (10), or the absolute control from the top over shop stewards in Schedule 3 (6).
  I wonder what has happened to the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who was so anxious to know why we were so distressed at what we regarded as the very real implications for trade unionists of registration. Registration will also impose upon unions the need to make their funds fully public. Their funds will be fully audited for the first time. The duties of their officers will have to be defined, which partly explains the increased turnover of full-time trade union officers in the United States, following similar supervision.
  Mr. Tom King: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing it as an objection that their funds should be officially audited?
  Mr. Duffy: I concede that it will raise problems—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are now."] Yes, they are now. I can see other ways. I am arguing that it will take away power from the grass roots and pull it up to head office, and that this will be especially true of funds, as has been pointed out today.
  Mr. Loughlin: So far as I know—I believe that my knowledge is fairly comprehensive of the major unions—their accounts are officially audited, by qualified accountants.
  Mr. Duffy: Yes, of course there is no question of malpractice; it is merely a tightening of authority in the union.
  The overall effect of these requirements is to force or persuade the trade union towards a policy of power and funds being located at the top, rather than continuing with their traditional power and funds
  592
  at the roots constitution. This is the phrase which I wish to commend to the Committee. Second, it will make the obtaining of compensation, as we shall find in a later Clause, and the selection of targets by employers more easy. In other words, non-registration will be made uncomfortable, to put it moderately. Registration will then be used as a weapon by employers and ultimately by the Government to impress their policy, through the unions, on the economy.
  My main concern, as I hope I have shown, is the way in which registration will force a change in the constitution of trade unions which will have the effect of changing their character. It will tend towards making them tools of the State. It will certainly make them creatures of employers. To this extent, we are in danger, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, of sliding towards the corporate State, whereas, as I have said, trade unions represent an important safeguard of our liberties. Nowhere is this more evident than at the grass roots, at the level which will feel the earliest and greatest impact of registration.
  I represent a constituency in Sheffield which is Labour-run. There are not many country boroughs now which are Labour-run, and one reason why Sheffield is Labour-run is that it is well run. It has a remarkable post-war record of reconstruction and urban development and it is run, in the main, by trade unionists, by men who learned their local government craft in their unions, at branch level. This is something which we should remember, that trade unions have traditionally been training grounds for democrats.
  By threatening the life of trade unions at branch level, we shall have to pay not merely an industrial price but also a social price. I fear that it is precisely at that level that registration will make its earliest and greatest impact.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: With respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), I cannot see that anything implied in registration will, of itself, make a trade union a more pliable instrument of the State, or in any way more amenable to employers. I do not think that it will. That was a grossly exaggerated fear of his.

  593
  The nub of this debate was revealed in a speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). It struck me that his distinction between what he described as the shop steward movement and the trade union movement was absolutely at the heart of the matter. Far from finding his speech perplexing, as did an hon. Member opposite, I thought that he was dealing with exactly what registration is aimed at.
  The mischief which the Bill is intended to meet is the mischief which we have been talking about for many years now, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government—that is, that many more industrial disputes are caused by unofficial action than by official action. The aim and purpose of the Bill, whether it is right or wrong, is to make unofficial action more difficult and trade unions much more responsible for their shop stewards.
  Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Tottenham and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) have kept an absolutely consistent line on this matter. They were equally against the Labour Government in this matter as they are against this legislation. They see this as a direct threat to the movement in which they have been brought up, which is not only the trade union movement but the shop steward movement within it.
  As I see the requirements for registration, they will strengthen the trade union movement, but at the expense of the shop steward movement. What the Committee should be addressing itself to is the question of whether this is desirable in itself—it has many advantages as well as disadvantages—and whether, if it is desirable, this is an efficacious way of doing it.
  The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) did not do justice to his Amendment, since he dealt with it rather superficially, compared with the hon. Member for Tottenham. He spoke of "legal claptrap". That is no way to treat Clauses which, after all, if the Bill is passed, will govern the relationship of the trade unions on registration until at least the Bill is changed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Repealed."]—or repealed—whatever happens to it.
  Therefore, it is very important to look at the effect of these Clauses and this
  594
  Amendment. It is entirely academic to discuss this matter on the basis that unions will not register. Of course they will. Whatever they say now, no legal adviser could advise them not to register, because it will be advantageous to register and disadvantageous not to register. What the registration requirement and all that follows from it will hit is the splinter group, the chance of developing new unions, the shop stewards on the shop floor doing things at a remote distance from union headquarters, and union headquarters will be able to bring pressure to bear on them because they are the registered trade union and have to "carry the can" for the shop stewards.
  7.0 p.m.
  Anybody who has to study trade union rules is interested to find how much they vary. The hon. Member for Salford, West described his own union rules. I have not examined them, but from his description they sounded like what could be a model for other unions. Some unions have vastly different rules from those.
  One of the matters with which we are for ever concerned in the Bill are the rights of a man to join a union and the powers of a union to get rid of a man. There is one easy device which has been accepted and used by some unions. When a man whom they do not want particularly applies for membership—it may be a 100 per cent. union membership shop—the method sometimes employed is for the union to enrol him, not as a member, but as a temporary member. He is issued with a different coloured card. He is entitled to a job, but not to the rights of a full member.
  Mr. Orme: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us which unions employ such a device?
  Mr. Hooson: S.O.G.A.T. is one. Any number of unions have such rules. They may be perfectly valid rules.
  I see no reason why there should not be standard rules for trade unions. I do not understand why hon. Members on either side object to there being standard rules, which Schedule 3 would provide and which would give the registrar, who will clearly be an important personage under the Bill, powers to amend or change the rules if they did not suit the circumstances of particular unions.

  595
  Few trade union rules make much mention of shop stewards. Shop stewards have grown up as a movement within unions without having official status in many unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Tottenham knows that what I am saying is true. The rules of many unions hardly mention shop stewards. Shop stewards have unofficially attained a very important position in unions, but they are mentioned only sparsely in union rules. Their real power is very much greater than would appear from the attention that they receive in the rules.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West said that to rewrite the rule book would be a very difficult matter because the rule book as such does not correspond with the actual powers of those involved in the shop steward movement.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and has great experience in the House of Commons. I do not accept his argument, however, and I do not think that any of my hon. Friends will accept it. I remind him that the House of Commons, which has existed for hundreds of years, has never recognised political parties. We are all hon. Gentlemen and we are equal theoretically. The hon. Gentleman is advancing a purely academic argument. I believe that, when everything has to be spelled out in rules or in a code, free will and free bargaining go and become the cat's-paw of successful lawyers who advise on things that they do not understand.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not criticising the unions for not mentioning shop stewards. I was merely stating it as a fact which must be dealt with. One of the questions which this Government and any other Government must ask in dealing with this matter is: if the Bill is enacted and there is this movement which is intended to discipline people further down the line, will it succeed? Can it succeed? Can one by this procedure succeed in making unions so change their rules and their discipline that they can control the shop stewards' movement as it has developed? As I understood him, the hon. Member for Tottenham said that in his opinion the unions could not do it in any event and
  596
  that, no matter what legislation was passed, the unions would not succeed in controlling the shop stewards' movement.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: It is not quite clear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is desirable that the influence of the shop stewards should be diminished. If he is, will he cast his mind back to the Scamp Report on Ford's, which testified that the shop stewards had managed to stop hundreds if not thousands of disputes, on the shop-floor, in a matter of minutes or hours?
  Mr. Atkinson: Can I clear up the point about the rules? I was arguing that in my unio—the A.E.U., as it used to be; the A.U.E.W., as it now is—the rule is clear about the functions of shop stewards. A shop steward does not have the right to take action on the shop floor to stop the shop in the absence of a district committee decision if the status quo applies in the factory. In other words, if an employer's representative comes into the mill or factory and changes the status quo a shop steward has every right to act independently of the district committee and to stop the shop. I was discussing the functions of the shop steward and saying that no trade union has ever attempted to design its rule book to prevent a shop steward from having the right to take unofficial action.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has asked me if I am in favour of reducing the power of shop stewards. I believe that this power must be reduced or changed. I do not believe that in practice it will so much be reduced as changed in character. One of the dangers about the Bill is that there will be more official stoppages and fewer unofficial ones, because the nature of the movement will change.
  I am obliged to the hon. Member for Tottenham for explaining the position of shop stewards qua rule books.
  As to registration, we shall be left in this dilemma. The actual power in the union does not always correspond with the so-called rules. The actual power is not so much at the top but is dispersed widely at the bottom, on the floor.
  Mr. Orme: So it should be.
  Mr. Hooson: Certainly. There still must be co-ordination. Britain has failed

  597
  in the matter of co-ordination. We would not have had so many unofficial strikes if there had been co-ordination. There is something wrong when a Labour Government and a Conservative Government say that the great evil in Britain on the trades dispute side is the unofficial strike, as opposed to the situation in America, where there is the official strike.
  Balancing these matters, I believe that it is desirable to have registration. The analogy has been drawn that Mussolini required registration. So does Sweden. That is an argument neither for nor against and it does not help at all.
  It is desirable that there should be model rules, because I accept that the trade union movement is a great bulwark of liberty. Some trade unions have the most excellent rules. Like rules in all other organisations, they are sometimes bent a little. Some unions have rules which are not so good. I do not see any reason why there should not be model rules. I see no reason why the Registrar should not have power over the rules in this way. I see no reason why the whole thing should not be controlled.
  As I said on Second Reading, trade unions have become a fourth escape. Having reached that state, they need rules of a much more formal character than they formerly did. When any body over a period of time evolves, it is found that to safeguard freedom within that body more formalities and more rules are needed than the body had in its formative years. Exactly the same has happened to the British trade movement. When all the ballyhoo is over, people will find that, for the established trade unions, registration will have made very little difference.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Until my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke, I thought that I was attending an A.E.F. love-in. I have no great criticism to make of the A.E.F., of course, save that at present it shows no desire to merge with the T. & G.W.U., but perhaps that goes back to original sin and may be understandable.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: If my hon. Friend's union chooses to make representations to us, we shall consider them.
  Mr. McNamara: Perhaps then my right hon. Friend could claim to be a member of the first largest union, not just the second.
  My hon. Friends paid proper regard to the rules of their union. It is an ancient union with a long and distinguished history. They are proud of their rules. But so are we all proud of our rules. Our rule books enshrine our rules, the rules which we make in deciding what regulations shall be applied to our affairs. They are the rules which we lay down for the running of our own unions. They are ours; that is the important thing about them.
  The Bill would change our rules. It would say that someone else could examine the rules of my union, go through them, examine them closely, and, perhaps, say that a rule did not meet, for example, the provisions of Clause 1. In that case, that rule would be out.
  It so happens that my union expresses in one of its rules the implementation of Clause Four on the Labour Party. In fact, we had it before the Labour Party did. But is that within the "national interest" as Ministers interpret it? Speaking earlier about registration and what was responsible trade unionism, the Minister said that "responsible" must be interpreted in relation to the national interest. We asked what "national interest" meant, but he could not define it, or he refused to do so.
  This is the nub of our argument when we say that these provisions will start us on the way to the corporate State. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) went through the steps, showing that ultimately we should have a political decision reached on what was or was not good for trade unions. This is what makes the provisions about registration so reprehensible within the framework of a Bill of this kind.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is probably right when he says that registration does not matter one way or another. Sweden has it, he says. But so does Italy. What matters is what lies within and behind registration, and that is what we are arguing about. To hear hon. Members opposite talk, one would think that we had not had registration of trade unions for almost a century. But it is there.

  599
  It was introduced to protect trade unions, to protect our funds, and to enable us to organise ourselves in society. We were able to do that, but the Registrar had no power to say what was or was not right for us as free men in our own societies, free men deciding what our own rules and regulations should be, whom we would admit and whom we would not, and so on. Even if the A.E.F. does not register under the Bill, it can be forced to take in people whom it does not want. So merely staying outside the register will not affect the matter. That is an important point.
  I think that it was Sir Arthur Bryant in one of his histories who spoke about an English yeoman farmer who, before he died, left directions in his will that spikes were to be put over his grave, because no one had ever trampled over him in life and he intended no one ever to do so after he was dead. Hon. Members opposite would applaud that sort of sentiment. Do they not understand that our rule books are our spikes? They protect us and they protect our societies. The Solicitor-General and his right hon. Friend wish not just to blunt the spikes but to pull them entirely away. In effect, the Government are saying that the rules of our societies must be subject to the decisions of the Secretary of State according to his interpretation of the national interest. This is what percolates through the whole Bill, and it worries us greatly.
  7.15 p.m.
  In the speeches of hon. Members opposite—one almost heard overtones of it in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—there is the suggestion that, in some way or other, the trade unions exist only to make industry more efficient, to make the wheels of commerce move more smoothly, to make a profit. They do all that, and they do it very well, but that is not their purpose. Their purpose is to protect the interests of their members. This is why we regard as so reprehensible the centralisation of power entailed in what the Government propose regarding union rules. The whole philosophy of Donovan about negotiations, and the changes which have been taking place in our industrial structure, have been away from the national agreement and towards individual plant bargaining.
  600
  If we are to have individual plant bargaining, we shall have to give more power and influence to the branch official, the shop steward and the person working in the plant or factory. That is where questions will be decided. That is where disputes will start. If we stop the negotiation and settlement of disputes there, we shall build up the cancer which leads to the mighty industrial explosion which can bring a whole industry to a halt or create the sort of situation which we shall later, perhaps, discuss when considering the question of cooling-off periods and ballots.
  We must give responsibility to the person who is concerned locally, and one cannot define that responsibility in nice lawyer's phrases, hedging it round, squaring it off, saying that this is what he shall be allowed to do and the other is not. One cannot do that. One cannot legislate for a constantly changing situation, be it in workshop, ship, quayside, farm or even a school. One has to take the situation as it is. There has to be sufficient acceptance of the idea that the responsible person there, be he shop steward, branch official or ordinary union member, will be able to understand the situation and decide what is the right thing to do. Only within that sort of framework can one have rules and regulations in one's organisation.
  This part of the Bill dealing with registration—it goes right through the whole thing—takes from us our trade unions. It takes from us our society. It takes from us the protection which people like my parents and grandparents, poor and illiterate peasants coming from Ireland, used to build up their own society, strengthen their position, and give opportunities for their children. This is what the Government will be taking from us when they say that the State should be able to look at these things.
  We will not let them do it. These are our unions, not the Secretary of State's not the Solicitor-General's. They are our trade unions, and we intend to keep them so.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  Mr. Hayhoe: First, I take up what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about the corporate State, because he was in some

  601
  way re-echoing what we heard earlier from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) when he spoke in similar vein. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are presenting a mirage of horror at what this Clause and the associated provisions will do. I do not accept that registration as exemplified in the Bill is the first step towards the corporate State, but. assuming for a moment that it is, I remind hon. Members that it was the Donovan Commission which made the first faltering move in that direction.
  We can argue about the detail, but in principle Donovan was certainly moving towards registration, and in "In Place of Strife" the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) went some way further along that path. While we may argue the detail, the degree, the type of registration and the conditions, I do not accept that Donovan, the right hon. Lady or my right hon. Friends are in any way moving towards the corporate State in the registration provisions they have severally and individually supported.
  Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious charge against the Donovan Report. Given the voluntary finding of its membership, he is prepared to support that charge with the text he has in mind?
  Mr. Hayhoe: I think that we can find it in Donovan under "Registration". There was the first faltering step in the paragraphs dealing with registration, beginning at No. 788, and in the sections dealing with union rules. I can find them if the hon. Gentleman wishes. The tenor of the whole of those arguments is in parallel with what the right hon. Lady suggested in paragraphs 107-109 of "In Place of Strife", where registration was proposed in terms and where a financial penalty was to be imposed by an industrial board. Presumably, the board was to fine those unions which did not register. The right hon. Lady's proposal would have imposed on the unions that did not register a fine in addition to the penalties to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) referred, arising from different tax liabilities and so on. Incidentally, I found it helpful to have the fuller explanation of this matter and the quotation from Citrine
  602
  given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).
  There was a substantial difference between the right hon. Lady's proposals and those of my right hon. Friends, who are saying not that penalties will be placed on those that do not register but that there will be certain advantages that they do not gain. It may be a matter of semantics, but I prefer my right hon. Friend's approach to the right hon. Lady's imposition of a financial penalty.
  Mr. John Fraser: Since the hon. Gentleman has not got them, may I give him the proper references? In paragraph 649 of Donovan, we are told:
  "We think that the requirements can and should be revised with a view to ensuring better safeguards for individual members."—
  and this is the important part—
  "but without impairing the freedom which trade unions ought to enjoy to frame rules to meet their own circumstances."
  In paragraph 109 in "In Place of Strife" we are told:
  "Unions will be free to frame rules to meet their own requirements."
  The essential distinction is between the unions framing rules to meet their own requirements and being told the rules that they must have in their rule book.
  Mr. Hayhoe: If someone is told, "You must write your own rules, but they must meet certain criteria", that does not seem to me to be vastly different from saying, "These are the things which must be in the rules." This is not a point of principle but of semantic detail.
  The gravamen of the argument in the Committee is not about the words in Donovan, "In Place of Strife" or the Bill but about the fears sincerely held by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that in the provisions there is something much more sinister and dangerous than I see in them. They see much greater dangers and difficulties than exist, and are making somewhat of a mountain out of a hillock, if not a molehill.
  I hope that all hon. Members accept that union rules are not perfect. The rules are extremely good in many of the major unions, but there are ways in which they should be brought up to date. That view is supported by any fair reading of Donovan, of the T.U.C.'s document "Programme for Action", and the words

  603
  used by Victor Feather in commending that document to the Croydon conference. Union rules should be brought up to date particularly to provide better safeguards for the individual freedom of members. We can find quotations to that effect scattered through the documents. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite would seriously challenge the assertion that there have been occasions, albeit very rarely, when things have not gone as they should.
  I accept in turn that Donovan and "In Place of Strife" stress that there is no serious abuse of union power across the board. But we are not always concerned just with the generality. This brings us back to the discussions on Clause 5. In matters of individual freedom we should be concerned with specific cases and aim to provide legslation to protect individual rights. I see these Clauses as having that at least in part as their objective, particularly where individual rights may be under attack, even if only rarely, by abuses of union power.
  It is stated in "In Place of Strife" that the Royal Commission found no evidence of "widespread abuse" of union power. The presumption, therefore, is that it found evidence of some abuse. Therefore, it is right that criteria should be laid down in the Bill to improve union rules and draw them up to the level of the best. We cannot leave it to voluntarly action. The T.U.C. can do something and, particularly since June, 1969, has been doing things to improve the rules of its constituent members, but even if it succeeds with all of them there are 300 or 400 small unions outside the T.U.C.
  Mr. Heffer: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not a question of the Bill's bringing the rules up to the best but of introducing, under Clause 61(7), for example, aspects which are entirely new? For example, a union will have to accept into membership people who may well have scabbed against it in a dispute, people whom it does not want in the membership.
  [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I would certainly be prepared to look at some of the words used in Clause 61. I think that I particularly
  604
  want to hear my hon. and learned Friend explain the phrase, "reasonably well qualified". It may well be that he will be able to convince me that the phrase is sensible but it is a curious one.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Hayhoe: I will take the advice which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is always giving to his hon. Friends when hon. Members on this side seek to intervene. As I hear him he mutters, "Don't give way." Perhaps I should on this one rare occasion take his advice and I give him due notice that I shall not take it on any other.
  I was impressed by what the hon. Mem-for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, again in that lyrical way in which his heart shone through as well as his mind, in talking about the virtues of his own union. It would seem that his union is the very perfection of democracy and that that perfection is shared by nearly all other unions. I ask those who believe this why the percentage of people voting at elections in unions generally is often as low as it is. Why is the number of people who turn up at branch meetings generally so low? I know how low it is from my own experience in attending the branch meetings of my own union in the past. I do not believe that these figures underwrite entirely the belief that the quintessence of perfection of democratic behaviour exists in all the trade unions of the country.
  Mr. Orme: Everyone wants to see the highest possible percentage. We should like to see 99 per cent. voting in parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, however, in some constituencies less than 50 per cent. voted and in municipal elections the turnout is often between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. In a recent election in my union for a major office, the voting figure was 20 per cent. Members of trade unions go in their own time to branch meetings and I wish there was 80 per cent. attendance then. But one cannot compel members to go. They have the democratic right to go or not go.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I accept that, but I say that it is an indication that improvements can be made and that the situation is not as perfect as we would wish. The hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure of 20 per cent. He knows that, quite often,

  605
  the percentage voting can be as low as single figures. In my experience, I have found this to be true and again some examples are given in the relevant paragraphs of the Donovan Report.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will resist the Amendment. The arguments used in its support are based largely upon a totally incorrect reading of the motives of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite ascribe to us evil motives in this regard, but on the basis of their total misunderstanding one can have some understanding of the words which have been used to describe what might happen under the Bill. Take away that misunderstanding, and many of the speeches made by hon. Members today have been incomprehensible and not in line with what I believe will happen under these Clauses.
  Mr. John Mendelson: From the beginning of this debate perhaps only one speech so far—I do not say this scathingly—has tried to deal with some of the true purposes of the Bill. That was the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hopson). It is therefore to his contribution that I want to address myself and why I am anxious to take part in the debate. I will not judge the Government's case on the kind of support they have received from their own benches. That would not be a fair measure of the case the Government are trying to make.
  It is not very important to consider, therefore, whether these expressions of general sentiment are relevant to the Clause. What matters is a point which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery left out. He dealt with the matter of registration and all the points involved in the Amendment as though one could treat the registration Clauses in theory and in isolation. But the nub of our case concerns the consequential Clauses which follow upon the appointment of a registrar under the terms and conditions of the Bill. That is the issue to which we have to address ourselves if we are to understand all the sentiments to which hon. Members opposite have referred ad nauseam. I am getting a little tired of their declarations of how much they admire the sentiments of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends have not expressed sentiments. They have made a reasoned case
  606
  and it is to that case that the Government have to address themselves.
  If further evidence is required, I quote Mr. Victor Feather as a man who is not dealing in sentiment. He had this to say about these Clauses:
  "All this follows from deciding to replace existing social rights by a State licence to operate.
  "These proposals are not extending the rights of working people. They are intended to convert the rights that workpeople have established and defended themselves into legal 'privileges "dependnt on good behaviour."
  That is not a sentimental view. It is an historic summing up by the present leader of the British trade union movement of what lies behind these proposals.
  Why are they being objected to? I and many trade unionists who have discussed this matter with me at the many meetings in which I have taken part object because of the connection with other parts of the Bill. When Mr. Feather refers in his telling phrase to there being a licence for good behaviour, one has to look at Clause 61. More attention should have been paid to the text of the Bill in the speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite. Subsection (7)(a) reads:
  "to take any action which, in accordance with any provision of this Act, would constitute an unfair industrial practice on his part …"
  that is, the individual trade unionist. The subsequent Clauses deal with the terms of reference which are to guide the registrar once he is appointed with the important powers that hon. Members on both sides agree that he would have. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) agrees that he would have them. These are the terms of reference by which the registrar will have to be guided. A whole range of activities vital to a free trade union movement are affected. This is not just a one-Clause Bill to allow the appointment by the Government of a new registrar.
  The Government are asking the House to accept the whole of the Bill and all its consequential Clauses. Once the Bill has been passed, the terms of reference would allow the registrar to work by reference to new phrases and new implications and new legal facts constituting unfair industrial practices. That is the decisive issue which the Committee is debating and which my hon. Friends have been rationally arguing all afternoon.
  Mr. Orme: That is what it is all about.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is why a man as responsible, sober and level headed as Mr. Feather—and nobody has called him a sentimentalist who deals in emotion—says that it is objectionable to replace the acquired rights of working people, built up in their history of 150 years, back to the time of the famous strike of the scissor grinders in the City of Sheffield in 1797, preceding even 1857 and the other dates which have been mentioned. That is what Mr. Victor Feather has in mind when he talks about the rights which working people have built up over so many years.
  The Government are attempting to say to the trade unions that from now on they must not go on building up their rights and conventions in their own movement, but must be forced to accept a biased Bill, including new definitions of unfair industrial practices and allowing the registrar, by reference to these new provisions, to decide whether a union should be registered. This is unacceptable to the trade union movement. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows, I agree with him that we must not exaggerate the implications of the Bill, and he had reason wholly on his side when he said that, but there is a connection between this provision and the rest of the Bill which the hon. and learned Member failed to make.
  That is the kernel of the whole argument, but now I turn to the more general argument which explains why so many of my hon. Friends are sensitive about this subject, and again this is not a matter for sentiment. They know very well, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery talks about weakening certain sections of the trade union movement and reducing their influence, that these provisions are not: only objectionable to shop stewards all over the country, as he seemed to imply, but are meeting the total and unanimous opposition of the general secretaries and presidents of unions affiliated to the T.U.C. It would be wrong to allow to stand on the record his implication that only some people, removed from the centre of the trade union movement, object to these provisions.
  The Prime Minister, whom we have not seen much in these debates, made a
  608
  speech attacking a group of people, shop stewards and others, whom he called loud-mouthed. Hon. Members will remember that it was a Saturday evening speech. During that particularly offensive speech. the Prime Minister talked as though he was referring to a different part of the trade union movement. But trade unions are so organised that people with local duties in factories and those in charge of a district, or a division, or a region, or at national headquarters, have much more contact than is often visible to the naked eye; after all, the telephone was invented some time ago.
  Mr. Hooson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Frank Roberts did some research at the L.S.E. in 1964, and that out of 30 union rule books which he examined only five mentioned shop stewards?
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is the trouble with a great deal of academic research—too many people compare pages of print and do not know what goes on in British industry. I speak as a graduate of the L.S.E. and I do not take it remiss that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned it, but that institution, honourable and learned though it is, often falls into the category of those who are too fond of texts and rule books and not enough of travelling the country and spending a few years seeing what goes on in the workshops and factories.
  There is a great deal of convention in industry, as there is in our constitution. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know about these conventions, but they are most effective and they are being acted upon all the time.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: Custom and practice.
  Mr. Mendelson: Custom and practice in industry and throughout the country. The general secretaries and presidents of unions and the central leaders know very well that the design behind the Bill is not to put a few shop stewards in their place, but to weaken the trade union movement as a whole. That is why their opposition is as unanimous and as bitter as that of the shop stewards themselves.
  Much has been said about the disciplining of members. This is another important aspect of the argument. The

  609
  trade union movement has reformed its arrangements from time to time. Hon. Members have to understand that it is not only because people feel that it is morally objectionable or sentimentally offensive for the State to say to an organisation like a trade union, "You will reform your rules in this way".
  I want never to shirk in our discussions of the Bill any difficulties which we had when in office. Hon. Members who are well informed on these matters will know that there was a serious argument between some of my hon. Friends and the General Council of the T.U.C. for several weeks precisely on the subject of how the trade union movement should change its rules. I do not want to shirk this issue. We do not want to be only propagandists. Why should we not discuss these matters as grown men and women? During that important argument, the members of the General Council of the T.U.C. refused to have their rules rewritten for them by any Government, no matter what its party, because they believed, as they now believe, that, as members of a free, democratic trade union movement, it was for them to decide how their rules should be reformed.
  It is wrong for the Government for ever and a day to quote bits from one White Paper or another. What we are debating is the Government's attempt to do something which is deeply objectionable to the leaders and members of the trade union movement, not only on emotional grounds, and not mainly on emotional grounds, not only because they think that it is morally offensive, but because they are convinced that it is wholly unrealistic, will not work, and has nothing to do with the free movement of trade unions.
  They take the view that the worst thing that can be done to help to make the necessary reforms within an organisation such as the trade union movement is to say, "You are now required to do this, because we as the Government say so". The Government will never be able to divorce themselves from this, however many protestations they make about desiring the reform of the movement only in order to strengthen it, because the facts are against them.
  This can be tested against one proposition. One of the unfair industrial practices
  610
  which will become part of the terms of reference of the Registrar will be the desire or otherwise of a group of trade unionists to work with non-union labour. We always return to this subject, because the weakening of the trade union movement by forcing people into being heroes when they are blacklegs runs through the Bill from beginning to end. When we discussed this earlier in the definition Clause we had this in mind, that the early definition would always be returned to in other parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that trade union members have refused to have their rules rewritten. He will recall that in this Chamber a few years ago traders had their rules rewritten as a result of the abolition of resale price maintenance. Would it have been right for traders to have their rules rewritten in the same way?
  Mr. Mendelson: This is not relevant to the argument, but I want to be courteous to the hon. Gentleman, and what I am saying is that the British trade union movement has always been within the law. I deeply object to the constant use of the word "privilege". The hon. and learned Member for Darwen tried his best for his hon. Friends by saying that when they used the word "privilege" as they had done for many days, they were looking forward to what will be a privilege if and when the Bill is passed.
  He will have to agree that the term is much more loosely used, that people have referred to the rights of working people have referred to the rights of working people acquired over the last 150 years as if they were privileges. Trade unions have been within the law and will continue to be within the law. They are not prepared to accept this attempt to weaken the movement in the disguise of legal trade union reform.
  Mr. James Hamilton: It ought to be made quite clear that so far as these rules are concerned, trade unions, every two years or every four years depending on their constitution, have a rules revision conference. These are alterations not by the general secretary or president but by the members.
  Mr. Mendleson: It goes much further than that. The present Registrar of

  611
  Friendly Societies has certain clearly defined powers. The argument has nothing to do with rules or whether they ought to be reformed but with the general attempt, linked with this Bill, to turn trade unions into licensed organisations. We are to have privileges as a substitute for what have become free rights, independently built up over the years. That is why we object to this provision. The Government can address themselves to this objection only if they accept that they must deal with the subsequent parts of the Bill relating to the appointment of a new Registrar.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will forgive me if I say that we have enjoyed listening to his contribution even if we do not necessarily agree with it. I have not seen one of his attacks quite so soundly rebuffed as it was by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and I think he has been man enough to concede that he has lost ground on that point.
  Like the hon. Member, I have sat through virtually the whole of this debate. We have had a continuing chorus from the other side of the Committee, taking certain cases out of context and building on suppositions, drawing the worst possible conclusions from these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) made an excellent speech which I thought was one of the more constructive contributions to the debate.
  Mr. Heffer: It came from the hon. Member's side.
  Mr. King: An interesting point is that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who is managing to keep up a running commentary at the moment, referred to one of the few objections in detail. We have had tremendous fears expressed about the implications of the registrar but we have had very few objections to the code of principles the registrar might be asked to follow. Only now at this late stage has there been any suggestion that there is anything offensive in the principles for which the registrar will be looking.
  One comment made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)
  612
  needs answering firmly. It has already been contradicted by his hon. Friends. He tried to say that this was a bosses' charter, that the Bill had been cleverly devised by all of the best brains on the employers' side to construct an aggressive weapon for dealing with the unions. Yet the most common debating point, which hon. Members opposite love deploying, is how often employers agree with them on some point they are putting forward. This seems to defeat his argument.
  I do not think that my right hon. Friend would claim that the Bill entirely satisfies either employers or unions. There are certain areas where the Government have taken an independent view in what they consider to be the future national interest. There may be cases where both employers and unions are agreed about their position with regard to certain points but after the fullest consultation my right hon. Friend considers that it is appropriate to propose otherwise.
  Mr. Orme: He does not know; he did not consult.
  Mr. King: I recognise the feeling for history of some hon. Members opposite. The trade union movement has a tremendous record and I can understand the continual references to its history. It seems incredible that while there are references back there has not been a single reference forward into the sort of industrial society into which we are moving. We are not making amendments, regulations, and laws for what has happened. These laws and this Measure will relate to the future and it is surely this which is relevant.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West took great exception to an intervention of mine which was not intended to be offensive. He was drawing a perfectly fair point asking where were the examples of past occasions that would justify this Measure. I was making the point that it is not solely past occasions but that we must anticipate problems, and it is this for which we are attempting to legislate.
  Mr. Bidwell: I have been interested in the hon. Member's play on logic. If he acknowledges the widespread characteristics of the trade union movement, the kind of people for which it caters, can he explain why the Government have

  613
  achieved the almost impossible and united the entire movement? Can he explain the rationale of that?
  Mr. King: The hon. Member was probably not with us a little earlier when we had a few exchanges on this point. I do not want to weary the Committee with my comments again, about my personal experience of how united the trade union movement is and about our doubts as to the genuineness of the spontaneity of the opposition. If he consults HANSARD tomorrow he will be able to read it.
  I did not want this analogy to be emotive, but I took that used by the Ministry of Transport to justify road improvement. In that case there has to be a past history of accidents and not a genuine concern for the future and problems that may occur. It is the future with which we are concerned. Hon. Members have made great play of Mr. Victor Feather and the hon. Member for Penistone quoted at length from him. I am sure that he will accept another quotation of Mr. Feather's:
  "But rules must reflect realities and there is some evidence that union rules have not always been changed to keep them in line with changes in the pattern of collective bargaining."
  The most interesting point is the recognition there of the change in the industrial situation. If I may relate that to yet another famous quotation of Mr. Feather's:
  "One man's strike is another man's lay-off."
  We have had hon. Members talking about the responsibility of people to their brothers in the same union. We also recognise the responsibility of union members towards other union members in other activities. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are many different unions and styles of activity. But in the industrial society which we are creating, with lower stock levels in factories and a far more complex interlocking relationship between supplier and producer at different stages of production, there is a responsibility of one group with another. This is a particularly significant future trend and under it union members have a right to know that other unions on which they may depend are also governed by rules which conform to certain basic standards. If one accepts this common responsibility one quickly realises that there must be some arrangement for ensuring
  614
  that the desired situation is achieved.
  I do not share the fears which have been expressed about all the terrors which might lurk behind the door. I believe that these provisions are a reasonable means of achieving the fair-minded objective of all of us.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to all the lecturers and lawyers who have sought to deploy the case for the trade unions. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King). I know that he has been charged by the Conservative Central Office to go round the country explaining the Bill. My advice to him is to stop reading the Central Office brief and to read the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) talked about the place of the shop stewards in the order of things. He said that many unions made no provision in their rules for shop stewards. That is true. But what are generally known as shop stewards are not always known as shop stewards in industry. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking I thought about the catering industry, in which the person who performs the function of the shop steward is called a house representative. The shop steward in many industries is not necessarily called a shop steward. He may be a branch secretary, chairman of the committee or a house representative.
  May I say, for the benefit of hon. Members opposite and particularly of the lawyers who think that they know something about the trade union movement, that people are not appointed on the basis of names in the trade union movement. We are not dealing with unions and trade union rules in a vacuum. We are dealing with the sort of guidance which should be given in the context of our industrial organisation. Trade union rules are designed in a certain fashion because it happens to fit in with the industrial organisation within which trade unionists have to operate.
  One can point to defects in any trade union rule book. The Press, lawyers and lecturers tell us the defects in the rule books of the A.E.U., the Transport and General Workers Union or U.S.D.A.W.

  615
  But, according to them, there is nothing wrong with the rules governing the B.M.A., the B.D.A., the R.I.B.A., or the lawyers. Apparently, only the trade unionists, and not professional people, have defects in their structures and organisations.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: The hon. Gentleman says that it is alleged that there is nothing wrong in the structure of the lawyers. Where did he get that idea from?
  Mr. Loughlin: There was controversy recently about whether the solicitors should do some of the jobs of the barristers. The barristers said: "No".
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a closed shop.
  Mr. Loughlin: Yes. The fact that the solicitors can do the job did not make the slightest difference. It was said that the barristers should do it and nobody argued, except people like myself and one or two of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) should not start excusing the legal profession, because it is the biggest closed shop of the lot.
  Mr. Crowder: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Courts Bill?
  Mr. Loughlin: I have read so many things in the last week or two that perhaps I have not read the Courts Bill. If there is not a closed shop and a very tightly knit system of rules and regulations in the legal profession, then I have lived in cloud cuckoo land for many years.
  Clauses 64 to 73 deal with the rights of democratic organisations to fashion the rules under which they shall operate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) talked about Fascism. I finished my Second Reading speech on this theme because I believe that it is part and parcel of the corporate State. It is the same type of registration and binding of trade unions the exists in the syndicalists in Spain. The trade union movement fashions its rules and regulations in the context of the circumstances in which its members have to operate.
  616
  If in industry we had the same democratic rights and principles which exist outside industry, we could start thinking in terms of creating the perfect rules and regulations that hon. Members opposite want; but we have not. We have a totalitarian system in industry. This is one of the facts of life. All of us have our aspirations and desires. We can all say, "If this were in this shape and form it would be perfect". But we are dealing with human beings. As long as there is a totalitarian system in industry we shall have to have rules and regulations in the trade union movement.
  Although we may have a registrar who says to the trade union movement, "You must submit your rules to me", and although the official trade union movement may dutifully submit its rules and regulations, when it comes to the practical realities of the shop floor it will not matter two hoots what rules and regulations are registered because the majority of disputes in industry are caused, not because of the rules of the union, but because of a failure in communication at plant level in the factory. All the registrars in the world could produce the most wonderful rules and regulations, and yet it would not make one iota of difference to industrial productivity which, I gather, is the primary purpose of the Bill.
  Trade union rules do not remain static. I know nothing more democratic than the British trade union movement. To take my organisation as an example, the power of my union is vested in the rank-and-file members and every two years we set up a rules revision committee. The members of my union are not fools. They know that we live in the real world, that the situation changes, and therefore the rules constantly have to change. In a democratic society a democratic organisation should be able to mould its own rules and then change them in accordance with an alteration in circumstances. There is no reason that the Government should seek to introduce a registrar to tell the members who have created a union that they are not capable of framing their own rules and that the registrar will frame the rules for the union—or indeed that the Secretary of State will do so. We all know how brilliant the Secretary of State is. He could not write a rule in the trade union movement.
  Mr. R. Carr: I probably could not write the rule book and, thank goodness, the Bill gives me no power to do so.
  Mr. Loughlin: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's remark with alacrity. When a Government introduce legislation such as that contained in Clauses 64 to 73 of the Bill, it is the first stage to the creation of a corporate society and of suppression of the trade union movement.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: I had not intended to intervene but I have been following the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) with care and it bothers me that he should think that anybody will interfere with the democratic rights of a union to make its own rules. For some years I have been associated with the British Legion, which is a chartered body and must go before the Privy Council every time it alters its rules. There are of course other chartered bodies such as The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and so on, and their rules must be approved. Therefore, the whole case put by the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. That is the only intervention I wish to make.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I have sat through a considerable part of this debate and have had the pleasure of listening attentively to a number of powerful, and mostly good-humoured, speeches. We are debating matters far too serious to use this opportunity as a vehicle for scoring small debating points in the manner of an Oxford Union debate or a discussion by an academic group of people who take a number of books and documents and juggle with them like a conjuror in a circus. We are dealing here with something that goes to the root of industrial relationships. I am as concerned about the future of industrial relations—and I have taken part in the process for most of my life—as is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) referred to the chorus of protestations from this side of the Committee. That happens to be true. There are protestations from this side of the House about this Clause and many others since, because of the operation of the guillotine, they have never been discussed. Does
  618
  it not strike right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have devised this legislation as somewhat ironic and significant that in the twenty years I have been in this House—and I have taken part in the deliberation of all sorts of contentious matters—members of the Labour Party have never been as united as they are today in their opposition to this legislation? There is absolute unanimity on the right, on the left, and in the centre—and I do not wish to be placed in any category since I am not concerned with labels but with realities. This should be a significant fact to the right hon. Gentleman, who is almost punch-drunk from the consequences of his own folly in bringing forward this monolithic piece of legislation. He has only himself to blame for being duped by all the academic boffins who have been advising him. [Interruption.] I am making a serious speech and I am trying to keep it short.
  We are constantly regaled with pleasant speeches by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Heyhoe) and many of his hon. Friends which are full of good intentions. I took the liberty the other day of reminding the Solicitor-General that in this House we cannot legislate for good intentions. We are putting on the Statute Book a code of conduct and behaviour which will subject trade union members or officials to certain penalties and disabilities if they transgress these provisions.
  We are constantly told by the Conservative Party on public platforms that this country has been overborne by too much government and that government is to be truncated and reduced. Yet here the Government are going in the opposite direction and seeking, by the guillotine process, to force on to the Statute Book a highly controversial and massive piece of legislation.
  Mr. Hayhoe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is reasonable for hon. Members on this side to talk of the good intentions of the Government, having been assailed with nonsense about the bad intentions of the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite?
  Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman has freedom of speech in this place, arid long may it continue. But let us not go on the downward track which will convert the House of Commons from a free Parliament into some kind of Reichstag. We

  619
  should all take the strongest exception to that. Without using the word "sinister", which I think the hon. Gentleman employed in his speech, I believe that these indications or tendencies are dangerous for the future and have given rise for justifiable concern by my hon. Friends.
  I should now like to deal with the serious arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, who has just returned. When challenged from this side on the argument which he was deploying, the hon. Gentleman quoted. quite fairly, certain sections of the Donovan Report, which some of us took the trouble to study when it came out. The hon. Gentleman was forced to admit, as a result of the exchanges which took place—the hon. Gentleman made a good-humoured and temperate speech; even if we disagreed with him, we liked his tone and manner—that the abuses referred to in passing by Donovan were very small in relation to the generality of trade union conduct, which is not under criticism.
  We have one of the Law Officers of the Crown with us this evening. Indeed, we are honoured to have two senior Members of the Cabinet sitting on the Government Front Bench at the same time—[An HON. MEMBER: "Only one is in the Cabinet."]—Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will work his way up. If I might have the Solicitor-General's attention, I should like to put this point to him. One can excuse the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, who is still—I say this without disrespect—an apprentice in this place, for making a slip; but for a senior Member of the Government to try to blast us with a lot of technical arguments and to argue that to legislate on this scale to govern trade union conditions and practice is legislating for the odd cases of abuse and hardship, is quite wrong. It has always been a constitutional principle, accepted by experienced Members, that the worst kind of legislation is that which is directed against setting apart some minority. We cannot legislate for special cases in a matter like this. We must legislate for the generality of cases.
  It is wrong for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to put forward this kind of legislation on the pretext that it is to deal with unions which have defective
  620
  rule books and abuses of the rules by perhaps dissident members of unions. When a man is doing something drastic or taking action on an industrial matter. the first thing—
  Mr. Gower Mr. Gower rose——
  Mr. Price: I do not wish to give way. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me. When a man does something drastic in connection with an industrial matter, the first thing that he does is perhaps to give notice or that to give notice that he is going on strike. But he does not go round to some office and say, "May I have the rules?" and look up the position.
  If I decide to do something in the House which I am convinced is right, I do not go running to the Library before I make a speech. I never speak in the House unless I know what I am talking about. I am open to challenge on any statement I may make recklessly, but I try not to make such statements.
  Rational trade unionists are the product of over 150 years of sacrifice and self-help. The great shibboleth of the Tory Party is that we should not have a regimented State: the State must not do everything and people must, by their own efforts, lift themselves from the disabilities and hardships which they have suffered in previous generations. The trade union movement has been doing that. I think that it should have earned credit for doing that rather than that the Government should seek to make it accept some monolithic legislation which will put it in a straitjacket subject to the authority of politicians. I cannot see any force in the argument that the trade union movement will not be put by the Bill in a straitjacket subject to poltical direction. With the kind of sophisticated modern State which is operating now, the registrar will certainly be subject, if not to direction from the Government, at least to [heir blowing down his neck and putting pressure on him to do things according to the policy of the Government.
  I have made this intervention rather longer than it ought to have been, but at least I have the feeling that hon. Gentlemen have been listening. They may not agree with me, but I can tell when they are listening. It is not always the midnight-oil speeches to which attention is paid. I have heard a lot of

  621
  heresy from both sides of the Committee——
  Mr. Redmond: We woke up because we thought that the hon. Gentleman was finishing.
  Mr. Price: If hon. Gentlemen wish me to go on for a long time, I shall find no difficulty. However, we are under the guillotine and the longer I speak the less time there will be to discuss other matters. I have to draw the line fairly equitably between my desire to have a few points recorded and the need to have time to discuss other matters later.
  The Government have much expertise and many boffins behind the scenes, propagandists and advocates specially trained to run round the country delivering these turgid briefs. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite coming here with their turgid briefs and putting them forward. They may put them forward to the Primrose League or sometimes to Tory women's organisations in the backwoods of the county shires—[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) if she wishes to intervene. I am delighted that she has come into the Chamber to listen to the debate.
  I am being provoked. While I want to be reasonable and allow time for my hon. Friends to deliver their speeches, if hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to go on I can continue for a long time on this theme, because the Amendment and the Clause deal with a matter of the utmost importance.
  I know something about rule books, because in a previous incarnation, I functioned as a national officer of one of the great unions of this country. One of the tasks which came under my supervision and authority was handling, on a national scale, the legal activities of the union. I have spent many hours ploughing through rule books to see what they mean.
  For anybody to suggest that a trade union, which may be a composite body consisting of many other unions which have amalgamated, ought to have some kind of regimented, rubber-stamped, standard rule book handed down on a plate from the Mount of Olives by some—[interruption.] I am not sure whether it is the Mount of Olives, and I am sorry if I have made a sublimal joke but I am
  622
  sure that hon. Members have got the point. To imagine that this can be done by legislation is to fly in the face of human experience.
  This legislation is denying independence to the mass of sensible trade unionists and elected leaders. Whatever may be the fate of this Clause and of the Bill, however it comes out of the sausage machine at the end of the day, I hope it will be realised that the resistance of my hon. Friends and myself to it is based on the fact that the trade union movement is not prepared to accept the penalties and handicaps which will undermine its authority as an independent body which has been created by the sacrifice, endeavour and intelligence of many generations of people before us, and we, as its guardians, will raise our voices and protest throughout the course of the Bill's progress through the House.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): One wonders whether there is any other institution, or set of institutions, in this country in respect of which so many words could have been uttered over so many hours asserting the one simple proposition, "Leave us alone. We are untouchable. Parliament should do nothing whatsoever to affect us".—[Interruption.]—Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) want to say something?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Solicitor-General talked about leaving people alone. I was suggesting that he could have mentioned his own profession. He could have referred to the Law Society, to the Bar Council and so on. No one suggests that they should be hamstrung and be subject to the control suggested in the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General: The Courts Bill is being considered in Committee upstairs, which demonstrates the extent to which the allocation of functions in the legal profession is subject to the determination of the House. The House considers administration of justice Bills almost every other year. It has considered Measures relating to solicitors, and a whole range of matters. We are not now debating the legal profession.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is the whole point.
  The Solicitor-General: What I am submitting is that there is no other institution in respect of which such a chain of argument could have been advanced, adding up, at the end of the day, to a prescription for inertia.
  Mr. Onme: This is an important subject.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not challenge the importance of the subject, but I suggest that there is an astonishing basis of misapprehension underlying some of the arguments and propositions which we have heard from the other side of the Committee. To talk about political straitjackets, about a prescription for totalitarianism, about suppression of free trade unionism, about the first steps towards a corporate State, and about regimented rules being brought down from the Mount of Olives, is to allow sensible discussion of these important matters to take leave of its senses.
  To come back to what we are really debating, it is the principle that the organs of the Labour movement in this country, the trade unions should, in order to achieve the full standing rights, and the new rights conferred by this legislation, be required to register. That is all. It is that central principle——
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose——
  The Solicitor-General: If hon. Members will allow me to develop my case, I shall come to the points which have exercised them for so long.
  Mr. Orme: What are the new rights?
  The Solicitor-General: We debated them yesterday.
  Is it, or is it not—and this is the purpose of the first group of Amendments—right that the full role and standing of trade unions should be confined to those which register? Which other major institution, so powerful, so long-established in our society, would be arguing before this or any other Committee that it is wrong for the legislature, on behalf of society, to begin laying down standards to be achieved by that institution?
  Mr. James A. Dunn: The Conservative Party, for one.
  The Deputy Chairman: Order.
  The Solichtor-General: Almost every—[Interruption.]
  The Deputy Chairman: Order.
  The Solicitor-General: Almost every kind of institution we can think of is subject, as a matter of course, to registration. If an hon. Member comes to the House and seeks to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule saying that it is right that fly-by night travel agents should be registered so that in the name of society we can have some protection in respect of them, he is acclaimed as a hero. With this new generation of matters such as travel agents, if someone wishes to register pre-school play-groups which are serving small aspects of society, registration is accepted as a matter of course. We are here concerned with bodies—
  Mrs. Renée Short: They do not have rule books.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) made an important point. He said that we are not legislating in a vacuum, and that these bodies do not exist in a vacuum. I quite agree. The bodies with which we are concerned have power. It is a power which they will retain to inflict great damage upon society, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said, because of the interdependence of our society, to inflict damage upon each other, upon each others' members and upon individuals. They have that power to that extent because of the framework of law with which they have grown up. It is the framework of law which goes back, perhaps, to 1871, and certainly to 1906, which has given them the position of power and authority which they hold, and it is that which we say, at the very least, entitles the Committee and the House to consider the basis upon which that power should continue.
  Mr. Loughlin: Surely the Solicitor-General is under a misapprehension in using the argument which I deployed, because the trade unions—I use his words—do not exist to inflict damage on any body or any section of the community. The rules of the unions are not designed, either deliberately or accidentally, to inflict damage.
  Mr. Orme: They preclude it.
  Mr. Loughlin: What the Solicitor-General has to address his mind to is not the question of the rules but what happens in industry when the Government have made all their good rules.
  The Solicitor-General: If I may revert to the central, over-simple point, there are a thousand institutions in our society which do not exist to inflict damage: limited companies, registered partnerships, travel agents, hairdressers—none of these organisations exist to inflict damage. But as a matter of course, they are all subject to scrutiny by the House on behalf of society and subject to such rules as society seeks to lay down in respect of them for the protection of the wider national interest and of those who come into contact with them.
  It is astonishing to see the extent to which the argument has been advanced from the other side of the Committee, saying that this is some treading, by this the mother of Parliaments, on hallowed ground. It may be right, as one hon. Gentleman opposite said, that the Labour Party in this House has not for a long time been as united as it has been in its opposition to the Bill. I would venture to assert that in so far as it finds itself united on this subject, never before has it found itself so isolated from the great mass of informed opinion in this country.
  Mr. Orme: What evidence is there for saying that?
  Mr. John Mendelson: Does not the Solicitor-General realise that to begin by saying that trade unions are organisations which can inflict great damage, is to give away the whole bias? Surely the starting point is that trade unions are organisations which have some authority because they protect the interests of their members and facilitate industrial processes.
  The Solicitor-General: I accept that completely. It is common ground on the benches opposite, and we do not challenge it. I accept that the trade unions exist to serve their members, and they play an important part in the community. What appears to be in issue, though I cannot understand why, is that, like every other institution, they are capable of inflicting damage on the community, on their members and on other unions. One man's strike is another man's lay-off. In his book, Will Paynter argues a cogent case
  626
  for the way in which the consequences of damage inflicted by the Labour movement unregulated are now so much more serious than they were years ago.
  Mr. Orme: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose——
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members know quite well that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, they must resume their seats. What is more, when two hon. Members rise at the same time, they make matters more difficult for the Chair.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman is leading with his chin.
  Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose——
  The Solicitor-General: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Heffer: The Solicitor-General will not give way.
  The Solicitor-General: That is apparent.
  Mr. Orme: Tell us why Will Paynter is not on the C.I.R.
  The Solicitor-General: I am not dealing with that at the moment.
  To come back to this point, just how far out of touch is it possible for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to get from the facts of reality? Is it seriously disputed as a foundation for this debate that organised labour, in a framework of law that is inadequate and does not secure for it the rights that we are trying to secure for it, by taking industrial action unnecessarily in pursuit of unfair and unreasonable objectives, is capable of inflicting harm on society which we should seek to avert if we can?
  Mr. Skinner: I am very interested in this point about trade unions and shop stewards inflicting harm. What kind of harm was inflicted by the shop stewards who came to this House on Monday? Those who came to this House from Rolls-Royce did not come to inflict harm. They came with a begging bowl, hoping for assistance from this Government. What harm can they inflict? The only harm that they can inflict is when the market forces suit them, which is very rare.
  The Solicitor-General: I thought that it was common ground that we in this House and the country are concerned with the problem of industrial relations. Disputes between powerful unions and between powerful unions and managements can cause widespread disruption. We should all strive to avoid it. That is an objective which commends itself to the country and to my right hon. and hon. Friends, even if not to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  I come to the central point of registration. We have heard two arguments advanced from the benches opposite. I am not sure where we stand. To some, the whole concept of registration is intolerable because it embodies the idea of a State licence to operate.
  Mr. Orme: Hear, hear.
  The Solicitor-General: To that, we get, "Hear, hear".
  Mr. McNamara: It is compulsory registration.
  The Solicitor-General: There are three stages——
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman should get his facts straight.
  The Solicitor-General: We are saying that, to achieve the status of a trade union in law, that body should register. That was asserted simply by the Donovan Commission. It was asserted simply in "In Place of Strife". Is it the proposition that, to become a trade union, a body has to register to which objection is taken, or is it taken only to the terms on which registration is here proposed?
  Mr. Orme: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
  The Solicitor-General: Not at this moment. We may be making some common ground——
  Mr. Orme: On this point——
  The Solicitor-General: If it is only the terms which are objected to, we have got at least somewhere. We acknowledge the desirability of registration to acquire status. That is common ground between us.
  [Mr. J.C. JENNINGS in the Chair]
  Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that, under the 1871 Act, unions have a right to register or not, but the majority of the unions, because there are certain benefits, in regard to money and so forth, are registered? But if a union is not registered, it is not penalised, as will happen under the Bill. In other words, it is to the union's advantage to register, and most unions are, but they do not have to register. That is what we mean by a voluntary system.
  8.45 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is a fair observation, but that which was good enough for 1871 is not necessarily good enough for 1971. When we have seen, over recent years, the Donovan Commission and the right hon. Lady both asserting that, in order to acquire the status of a trade union, a body should be required to register and exposed to various sanctions, we are surely entitled to regard that as reasonably common ground.
  The only argument, I understand, is as to the nature of the sanctions. The Donovan Commission majority said that registration to qualify as a union should be secured by withdrawing immunities under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. The Donovan Commission minority recommendation said that it should be secured by financial sanctions. It was the latter which recommended itself to the right hon. Lady. We put forward a selection of measures and we say that certain new rights shall be available only to registered unions, and that registered unions shall comply with other obligations. I cannot see the room for reasonable argument, as it is looked at from the outside world, over the desirability and sense of registration of bodies which claim this status of trade unions.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps saying that the trade unions are being given new rights. What is he giving us in this Bill which is new? What is he giving to registered unions which he is not giving to organised groups of workers which are not registered under the Bill?
  The Solicitor-General: We have spent some days, over several weeks, debating this, but to answer it in a sentence—all

  629
  the rights of recognised procedures which we spent yesterday discussing: important new rights. Hon. Members opposite complained yesterday that the new rights which we were discussing were not made available to unregistered bodies. They cannot on the following day deny the existence of those rights about which they were arguing——
  Mr. Orme: That is a debating point.
  The Solicitor-General: One cannot be blamed for making a debating point of some value in the course of a debate.
  What in fact are we attaching to the concept of registration? In essence, requirements as to the rules of those bodies, protection and remedies for the members of those bodies against the unions themselves and responsibility by the unions to conform to standards which arc to be laid down by the House for a modern society—[Interruption.] The standards to be laid down are contained in Clause 61, the guiding principles. The distinction between the guiding principles and those dealt with in Schedule 3 is that Schedule 3 lists those matters in respect of which rules must say something, whereas Clause 61 sets down the standards to which the rules must conform on selected matters of particular importance. They are guiding principles for the guidance of organisations, registered or unregistered.
  Again, I suggest to the Committee that it cannot be asserted that there is here something monstrous and wicked in the idea of requiring unions to register as such in this way. Nor is there something wrong, as one hon. Member opposite suggested, in trying to attach a corporate status to unions.
  What is underlying this is paragraph 782 of the Report of the Donovan Commission:
  "Law apart, we do not think that there is any doubt that most people look upon a trade union as something different from the members who compose it."
  The Commission then quotes Professor Dicey as saying:
  "When a body of 20, or 2,000 or 200,000 men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted."
  630
  The Commission continues in this way:
  "We think this is true; but even if it were not, we think that the time has come to clear away the uncertainties and obscurities which surround the position of trade unions at law, and that they should be granted corporate personality. In this we find ourselves at one with the Society of Labour Lawyers.
  784. … We think the better solution is the grant of corporate status to all trade unions. This will involve a concomitant liability to register, but the particulars to be registered would be common to all unions."
  Following this through on to paragraphs 791 and 792, this is not a voluntary register as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West suggests. It is made perfectly clear in paragraph 791:
  "… a law which obliged the unregistered trade union in future to become registered would not, in our opinion, impose a hardship, work any injustice, or deprive unregistered unions of some valuable liberty."
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. I usually deprecate long quotations. This quotation is getting quite lengthy.
  The Solicitor-General: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Jennings. I am anxious to develop the argument. It is not a continuous quotation. Paragraph 792 of the Report contains these words:
  "The definition of a trade union would be exclusively related to registered unions. New unions would be required to register within a stated period after formation."
  Going on from that to the requirements as to union rules, once again looking at the Donovan Report, and indeed at "In Place of Strife", they are to be requirements in respect of what union rules must deal with. Donovan makes it perfectly clear that the registrar is to have the power to ensure that the rules comply with the standards to be laid down by the House of Commons and that unions are to have time in which to see that their rules comply with those standards. This is the principle we are talking about.
  Mr. John Fraser: The Solicitor-General said, I think—perhaps he will confirm this, because there is some difficulty here—that Clause 61—the guiding principles is intended to apply to an organisation of workers whether it registers or not. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that? Is that why it appears as a Clause and not in Schedule 3?
  The Solicitor-General: That is perfectly right. Clause 61(1) says:
  "The principles set out in the following provisions of this section shall be guiding principles in the conduct of every organisation of workers, other than federations of workers' organisations."
  We believe that these principles are not unreasonable principles to lay down for the conduct of any organisation of this importance relating to the individuals belonging to it.
  Can it be argued that it is wrong to lay down standards saying that a member or a person who seeks work and who is reasonably well qualified should be entitled to secure admission to a union membership of which is necessary for him to his job? This is the first principle. We cannot see that it can possibly be justified that an organisation should be entitled unreasonably to exclude from membership a man who is qualified for the work which that union regulates.
  This again is at the heart of the approach of the Donovan Commission, because Donovan said that this does not happen very often, but that it is possible, without regulation of unions' rules, for a man to be hounded out of a job. Donovan quotes examples. We can all think of cases. There was the case of Mr. Bonsor years back who, having been expelled from his union, died scraping the barnacles off Brighton Pier because there was no set of guiding principles relating to the relations between him and his union.
  Is it to be suggested that it is wrong for a man to have the right, on reasonable conditions and on reasonable notice, to terminate his membership of an organisation? We put that forward as a condition to be attached to registration.
  Mr. Orme: Yes, we do object very much.
  The Solicitor-General: That is interesting, and the Committee will note it. But what kind of principle is it which suggests that members should not have the right to resign from organisations the freedom and voluntary nature of which hon. Members opposite are trying to defend?
  Mr. McNamara: Here is an example. A collective agreement is coming to an end. There is notice of a strike. A strike is to take place. A couple of people
  632
  want to "scab" on the rest of their fellows by saying, "We resign from the union, and we do not accept this". I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) had driven the point of that difference home to hon. Members opposite. What is more, such people could rejoin the day after.
  The Solicitor-General: It would be a question for the rules of a particular union as to how far the conditions and length of notice given were reasonable in that case.
  To return to the point of principle, what kind of organisation is it which seeks to lock someone into the ranks of its free members so that he may not resign therefrom? How can it be objected in those terms that somebody should not have the right, given reasonable notice and complying with any reasonable conditions, to terminate his membership? This is the difference of approach between the two sides of the Committee.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked a question, and I respond to his invitation. We want to help him. We think that he is honestly flogging away at a loser. Why, he asks, should not a person have the right to resign? It concerns us to hear one of this country's leading and distinguished lawyers enunciating that principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that, if he resigns from the Bar Council and does not pay his Bar fees, he will not be able to earn a living as a lawyer; he will be dependent entirely on his parliamentary salary, and a damn sight poorer than he is now. That is the answer.
  The Solicitor-General: If that point is put forward seriously, it must be dealt with seriously.
  Mr. Price: Certainly.
  The Solicitor-General: I practised at the Bar by virtue of qualifications which I secured from an institution, in the same way as anyone else taking professional qualifications secures them. Quite distinct from the qualifications which I gained, there is our trade union, the General Council of the Bar, to which I subscribe and to which I belong of free choice, from which I may resign at my free

  633
  choice, and on the executive of which I sat for a number of years, listening to some of my colleagues say that 90 per cent. membership of our trade union is not good enough. In that setting, as here, I argued that it was intolerable for the executive of that union to begin using coercive measures to secure the membership of the remaining 10 per cent. I could resign from that union and continue to practise, just as solicitors——
  Mr. Price: The Bar Council, not the union.
  The Solicitor-General: But the Bar Council is the union. Solicitors can resign from membership of the Law Society and join, as they have done, the British Legal Association, and continue to practise in their profession.
  Mr. Orme: May I return to the question of a person resigning from his union? The principle here is as important to us as was the principle on Clause 5, the right to be a non-unionist. What we say is that the members in a factory who have by their organisation, their combination, their subscriptions and their fees, worked and obtained the conditions which they have may say to a worker, "We will not work with non-unionists". They have the right to say that that person, if he wants to remain within the industry, should be a member of the union. It is not forcing him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite want the non-unionist to have the right to be able to work and to have legal——
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. This is a very long intervention. We cannot have a speech as an intervention.
  Mr. Orme: I am sorry, Mr. Jennings. I have made the point.
  9.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: If I may come back to the point I was making——
  Mr. Orme: Answer that point.
  The Solicitor-General: I will come to it. Until the hon. Gentleman interrupted I was asserting that people holding professional qualifications laid down independently are in no sense to be compared in this argument with those who do or do not belong to unions. This applies to any occupation. For example, society
  634
  lays down certain standards of competence to be achieved by barristers, doctors, colliery managers and shot-firers. They have to obtain specific statutory qualifications. If they do, they should be free to develop their skills and use their qualifications doing the work for which they are qualified. We also think that they should be encouraged to belong to trade unions and that agreements should be made with their employers to encourage them. But we stop short of the last point, the power of the trade union organisation to expel them on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds, to deny them the right to resign on reasonable notice. It is not unfair or unreasonable for society to lay down standards to which those organisations must conform. It is to that end that we think it not unreasonable for registration to be the foundation of the status of trade unions.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Clause 5(1) gives the individual an unqualified right
  "to be a member of such union as he may choose."
  Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman by these two provisions allowing any individual the statutory right to hop in and out of any such union as he may wish, irrespective of the circumstances?
  The Solicitor-General: The concept of someone hopping in and out of a union is slightly bizarre. The right to resign is one to be exercised on giving reasonable notice and complying with reasonable conditions. The right not to admit, or the obligation to admit, is by reference to reasonable conditions. There is no doubt that if hopping in and out were a hazard it could be fairly regulated in that way.
  I do not want to deal with the detail of that now. I return to the central theme. The idea of registration for these large organisations was put forward in Donovan and was asserted in "In Place of Strife". There may be room for argument about the particular conditions and particular points, but we assert with confidence that the time has come for unions, defined, enjoying the position of power and privilege that they now enjoy, to be required to register, and that it is not an unreasonable provision to include at the centre of this part of the Bill.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied at all.
  Mrs. Castle: It is entirely right that we should have had this protracted debate, because we are dealing with one of the central issues of principle of the Bill. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members on both sides have been anxious to take part in the debate. Tragically, this means that because of the guillotine we shall have about three hours to debate the details of the rest of this large number of Clauses, yet every time we probe the Government on the details a new facet of what they propose comes to light.
  We have just had a very interesting revelation from the Solicitor-General, which has entirely undermined the whole moral tone of his previous argument.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, under questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), that the principles laid down in Clause 61 are to apply to unregistered unions. I ask hon. Members opposite to think about what that means. I should like almost a moment's silence for the enormity of it to sink in. We nearly despair on this side of the Committee of ever getting through to hon. Members opposite just to what they are lending their names and their reputations. We gave up the Solicitor-General a long time ago. After all, he is the smoothest possible propagandist for his own brain child. He is like a besotted mother who cannot see a single fault in her own offspring. Of course we cannot get through to him. But we still retain hope of getting through to his hon. Friends, particularly since some glimmerings of comprehension have emerged in their speeches. I want to ask them to think for a moment about what he has just admitted.
  It is not, in the case of Clause 61, a question of saying, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said with such panache, that if unions want to enjoy the new privileges given by the Bill they should be prepared to register and accept control over their rules, because an unregistered union has no privilege at all. It has no bargaining rights; it cannot be a promoter of its own rights in an agency shop; it has no status in the bargaining unit or as a bargaining unit. All this was admitted to us yesterday. We know that, far from having privileges, an unregistered union is heaped with penalties under the Bill.
  636
  Again, it is not a question of saying, in the moving appeals to the general public of which we get so much from the Government, that it is necessary to protect society from powerful bodies which can, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, inflict grave damage. How can an unregistered union inflict damage? It has no legal right to strike at all under the Bill. It has no right to engage in any kind of irregular industrial action.
  Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Castle: That is so. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) shakes his head. He does not know what he is lending his name to or what he is voting for. The simple fact is that, if an unregistered union goes on strike, the protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act is withdrawn. If an unregistered union goes on strike, it faces in specific terms under the Bill unlimited financial damages.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Will the right hon. Lady explain the situation of an unregistered union which gives notice under its own procedure agreement? Will she say whether in that case there is any liability attaching at all?
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is straining the normal definition of the right to strike. The Government themselves have to admit that it is almost impossible to have a strike without a breach of contract of employment. What they are doing is taking away something far more than just the protection of Section 3. The protection of Section 3, which gave to unions the present traditional immunity for action in furtherance of a trade dispute, does not apply under this Bill to an unregistered trade union. If such a union tries to operate such a strike, it faces actual unlimited damages. So how can an unregistered union inflict this grave damage that we were all told was the threat hanging over our heads? It is a body which has neither privileges nor power to inflict grave damage on the public interest.
  Yes, despite that, the Government insist on the right under Clause 61 to tell an unregistered union whom it shall admit, what rights of terminating membership it shall give to its members, and, above

  637
  all, on applying to it the iniquitous provisions of subsection (7) which say that even though unregistered, it must write into its rules the freedom of its members to defy the Government's views, the Government's definition of an unfair industrial practice, the Government's definition of a closed shop, the Government's definition of the 100 per cent. union shop, the Government's definition of sympathetic action, as its right to exist.
  I say to hon. Members opposite advisedly that this is sheer control for control's sake and this is why we say that the Bill reveals that we have a totalitarian Government and a totalitarian Bill, and that is no exaggeration. I suggest that hon. Members go away and talk it over and check it and think about it and consider the sort of high-handed actions with which they are associating themselves.
  As for the rest; as usual, in a perfunctory speech, the Solicitor-General begged the whole question of the registration of unions. He said that no other major organisation would object to this public scrutiny. That is not the question. The trade union movement is subject to public scrutiny and the law of the land. There are more Questions in the House and debates in the House about the activities of trade unions than anything else. Of course they are subject to the law of the land. The question we are debating tonight is the trade unions' objection to what the Government propose.
  I am confident that hon. Members opposite have not grasped the central theme of this part of the Bill and its meaning. What do the Government want and what do they seek to do through this part of the Bill? It is apposite to begin by saying that the practice of other countries has been quoted to us time and time again in justification of what the Government are doing, but there is not one Western industrial nation with registration provisions of this kind in its law, with this kind of control by the Registrar, with this scope of power of the registrar, with this discretionary action given to the registrar and, after him, to the courts. This is the exclusive brainchild of the Government.
  We are told, and this is becoming the whole tenor of the speeches of the Solicitor-
  638
  General, that this is all in the Donovan Report and all in "In Place of Strife". I repeat my offer to the Solicitor-General—if he thinks so much of "In Place of Strife," why does he not base his Bill on it? The answer is that we should have had something not designed to exercise a tyranny over the trade union movement, but generally designed to strengthen it. The fact is that the Donovan Report and the Bill are as different as chalk from cheese, and that is why the Government have to misrepresent it.
  9.15 p.m.
  At every stage of the Government's argument, when they ought to have been justifying these tyrannical new principles, we have merely had a misrepresentation of Donovan as the sole argument. We have had it over the imposition of procedure agreements. We have been told that it was all in Donovan, but when we turn up Donovan we find the contrary. We find that Donovan was never. under any circumstances, present or future, in favour of enforcing agreements that had not first of all been voluntarily agreed. I quoted the other day from Donovan, and that is on the record.
  We have been told lies about Donovan on the imposition of procedure agreements. In the same way the position over registration is being deliberately distorted. Donovan was never in favour of making a condition of registration the acceptance of rules that the union had not agreed. That is the great dividing line, that is the great gulf that comes between us, the essential and enduring difference, and that is what we mean by a voluntary system.
  We cannot impose on trade unions rules which they have not agreed and above all we cannot impose on them rules which do violence to their own innate principles and tell them, "Swallow it or die". That is what the Government are doing here. Neither Donovan nor the Labour Government in "In Place of Strife" ever made the compulsory registration of trade unions a central part of the industrial relations problem. The Solicitor-General gave us the evidence for this when he read from Donovan pointing out that the whole concept of compulsory legislation started from the idea that it might help unions to give them corporate status. It flows from that

  639
  that they would have to register. It did not flow from any necessity of the industrial relations situation; it did not flow from any evidence that the unions were abusing their power either in relation to their own members or in relation to the community.
  It could not be put more explicitly than at paragraph 622 of Donovan. Here Donovan points out that the research people had endeavoured to find out what evidence there was of abuse by trade unions as a result of the fact that they were free to draw up their own rules. Donovan concluded as follows:
  "But the general conclusion can, we think, be drawn with reasonable safety that if the questioning of some 500 trade unionists and 400 non-unionists selected at random yields so little in the way of adverse criticism it is unlikely that abuse of power by trade unions is widespread."
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Read on.
  Mrs. Castle: I agree he said that on occasions it happens. [Laughter.] Of course. It is essential in the light of all this talk about the power to wield damage on the community or on individual members that Donovan's basic conclusion should be put on the record. No one on this side of the Committee has ever argued that trade union rules are perfect or that trade union behaviour is perfect. We do not have to, because there is not a single organisation in the community that can go into a white sheet of perfection. Let us be realistic and face up to that. The question is, what is the size of this little nut for which the Government are bringing up this great hammer?
  There was never any question in the Donovan Report of trying to dictate the content or even the principle of union rules. The Donovan Report pointed out that 85 per cent. of the total trade union membership was already in registered organisations on a voluntary basis. It said that the rules were not very onerous and that they needed to be extended in clarity and perhaps in scope, but time and again it came back to the theme which the Government are violating, namely, that better safeguards for individual members must be achieved
  "without impairing the freedom which trade unions ought to enjoy to frame rules to meet their own circumstances".
  640
  That is what is at issue and that is what the Government are violating.
  Of course, this was the theme of "In Place of Strife". If the Secretary of State wants to hide behind "In Place of Strife", let him live up to the following principles. We said in paragraph 107:
  '"The Royal Commission found no evidence of widespread abuse of union power."
  We went on to say that we wanted the trade unions
  "to conduct their business according to clear and comprehensive rules, and to deal fairly with any dispute between the union or its officers and the individual member."
  But we went on:
  "This must be done in ways that are compatible with trade union internal self-government and independence."
  We said in paragraph 109:
  "Unions will be free to frame rules to meet their own requirements and the Industrial Relations Bill will not propose that there should be provision for them to be challenged except on the ground that they do not adequately cover the subjects specified."
  That is what the Donovan Report said in its section on rules. It pointed out that there must be rules which deal adequately with the problem of elections and how a ballot is conducted if one is held and which deal adequately with rights of appeal, and so on. No one disputes that that is the end. There is nothing unacceptable in those principles. I, and no doubt many of my hon. Friends, would go further. I do not believe that there is any objection in principle to compulsory registration. It depends on how it is done and for what purposes. I am one of those who, as a back bencher, pressed for a long time for the compulsory registration of hairdressers because it is in their interests and in the interests of the community; and they want it. It is Governments who have always refused to concede it.
  Of course, compulsory registration can be a good or an evil thing according to the conditions imposed and the purposes for which it is introduced. But there is no point in having compulsory registration if one's aims can ix., achieved in some other way. It is a bad principle to have compulsion for compulsion's sake. The fact is that we are achieving our aims in another way, and that is why our Industrial Relations Bill did not include provisions for compulsory registration.

  641
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke was right when he quoted from a survey into union rules conducted by the T.U.C. He seemed to think that it strengthened his case because the T.U.C. said that a lot of rules were defective. It does not strengthen his case; it strengthens ours. Our case is that long before the Government produced their Bill, way back in June, 1969, stimulated by the Donovan Report into voluntary action, the T.U.C. proceeded to issue circular after circular to its members. 1 have them here. We might put them in the Vote Office and then some hon. Members might get some enlightenment of what the T.U.C. is doing about trade union rules.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has taken my point. All I said was that this indicated the need for a change in union rules, but the right hon. Lady will surely admit that those recommendations of the T.U.C. have not been put into effect. If they had been put into effect, the sort of rules which were quoted earlier would not now still be on the union rule book.
  Mrs. Castle: Of course, there is need for change in union rules. The T.U.C. admits it and has never said that the system is perfect and untouchable. It has said only that if we are to remain a free society we must do this for ourselves. This is the difference between us, and this is what was said in Donovan.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) asked what was the difference in the T.U.C. overhauling rules, or taking internal discipline measures, or deciding who had the right to call a strike and somebody else doing these things. There is, of course, a difference in principle. First and foremost, there are the iniquitous principles of Clause 61. The Government are saying that by law these repugnant principles are to be written into trade union rules. The big difference, which has been overlooked, lies in the policing power given to the Registrar. It is this which is unique and new and it is this the Government have never explained to the House. This is what the Government hide, and the fact that they hide it reveals their true aim. The Government's true aim is not that the union should be well-run in the interests of its members, but that it should be run in the interests of Government
  642
  policy. What the T.U.C. objects to is that the Registrar will control not only the content of rules, but their operation. The House must weigh the implications of Clauses 73, 77 and 79 in which the registrar can go to court and demand the cancellation of a union's registration because it does not fulfil that vague and dangerous phrase,
  "any other requirements imposed by the Registrar".
  Then there is Clause 11, which is the bother-causer Clause, under which any person who was, is or wants to become, a member of a union can make application to the Registrar and say, "That union is breaking the rules or breaking the registrar's principles." That complaint can be taken to the court and backed by legal sanctions. Or there is Clause 79, the "spying" Clause, under which, if the registrar has reason to suspect that there has been a serious or persistent breach of rules or action in serious contravention of the principles of Clause 61, he can haul a union before the court.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. We arranged for a wide debate on this series of Amendments and passing reference to Clauses 77 and 79 is perfectly in order as long as it is just a passing reference.
  Mrs. Castle: I have made a very brief reference indeed, Mr. Jennings, but it is essential to the argument to say that it is the policing of these rules by the registrar which is one of the most iniquitous practices to which we object. It is this which gives significance to paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 which, unfortunately, we shall never have time to examine in detail.
  Of course, the rules should say who has authority to call a strike. The T.U.C. says this, and it has circularised the unions saying that they should have that in the rules. Indeed, the T.U.C. went further. It said that it should be laid down in the rules who should have the right to conduct a strike. It is an entirely different thing to include such rules in a voluntary system rather than in a system which at every turn is regulated by legal sanctions. It must be remembered under these Clauses that a union can be taken to the Industrial Court for a breach of this rule and it will face cancellation of registration by order of the court to

  643
  prevent a continuance of the breach of that rule. So that all freedom of action by a union in, for example, a Pilkington situation, has been forfeited under this group of Clauses. Because the right hon. Gentleman cannot or will not see any difference between that and Donovan, he has forfeited all credibility in industrial relations.
  9.30 p.m.
  This policy puts a monstrously unfair burden on the shop steward. It is impregnated with the assumption that the only people who ever cause strikes are the shop stewards, the unions, or the workers. Never at any point is recognition made that strike after strike is caused by management, not only because it refuses recognition or dismisses unfairly, but because it is bad management.
  I was given an example only the other day by the district secretary of one of our major unions working in a key plant in the motor industry. He told me of an occasion on which he had to negotiate with his local management on the duration of an unofficial strike. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have no idea what happens in industry. Here was a case where conditions were bad. The men made a complaint not about pay, but to get local conditions rectified. Because, in this multi-plant company, management had not delgated authority for action down to local management level, the local manager had to say to the union, "Bring the lads out and they will soon move at headquarters and give me authority to meet your complaint, which I think is justified.
  fled". So they negotiated about how short a period of unofficial strike would be necessary for the men to get a legitimate grievance regularised. This happens time and again in industry.
  The Bill puts no responsibilities and penalties on management. The Bill and this provision has been in the minds of Conservative lawyers since 1959. It was first born in "A Giant Strength" in 1959. It was there as long ago as that. Twelve years ago the lawyers of the Conservative Party were spelling out how we ought to have this type of registration and regulation. This was not at a time when according to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State the unions were too powerful. This was the period when he said that they were so weak that the closed shop was justified.
  But it was already the policy of the Solicitor-General, who is now in a position to carry it out and thrust it upon us. The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the debate today because the Bill is not conceived in terms of improving industrial relations. If it were, it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to deal with this important section of the debate. It is a lawyer's brainchild. It was a tragic day for the Conservative Party and for this country when the Secretary of State put his own more practical judgment in pawn to lawyers who could not see beyond their noses.
  Question put, That the Amendment he made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 302.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES

  [9.33 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch amp; F'bury)

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Allen, Scholefield

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong Ernest

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Ashley, Jack

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davies, Denzil (LLlanelly)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Barnes, Michael

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Davies, S. D. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Doig, Peter

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Cronin, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lawson, George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Probert, Arthur

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rankin, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leonard, Dick

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  English, Michael

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Lipton, Marcus

  Roberts,Rt. Hn.Coronwy(Caernarvon)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Roper, John

  Foot, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ford, Ben

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Forrester, John

  McBride, Neil

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McElhone, Frank

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  C-alpem, Sir Myer

  McCune, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mackie, John

  Sillars, James

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Silverman, Julius

  Golding, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gourley, Harry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Small, William

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marquand, David

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mendelson, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Swain, Thomas

  Hilton, W. S.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Taverne, Dick

  Horan, John

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Ahertillery)

  Houghton, Rt. Nil, Douglas

  Molloy, William

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Tinn, James

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Moyle, Roland

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hunter, Adam

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Varley, Eric G.

  Irvine,Rt. Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Janner, Greville

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wallace, George

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Oram, Bert

  Watkins, David

  John, Brynmor

  Orme, Stanley

  Weitzman, David

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wellbeloved, James

  Johnson, James (K'stortion-Hull, W.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Whitlock, William

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Judd, Frank

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Pentland, Norman

  Lambie, David

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lamond, James

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Latham, Arthur

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Biffen, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Blaker, Peter

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

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

  Astor, John

  Body, Richard

  Carlisle, Mark

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boscawen, Robert

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Fit. Hn. John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Balniel, Lord

  Braine, Bernard

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bray, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Batsford, Brian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Churchill, W. S.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Clark, William (Surrey. E.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Clegg, Walter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bryan, Paul

  Cockeram, Eric

  Benyon, W.

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Coombs, Derek

  646

  647

  Cooper, A. E.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Cordle, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Costain, A. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Critchley, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Crouch, David

  James, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Curran, Charles

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dean, Paul

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kilfedder, James

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rost, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Emery, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

  Farr, John

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

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fell, Anthony

  Longden, Gilbert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Loveridge, John

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

  Fidler, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Soref, Harold

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Spence, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Sproat, Iain

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stainton, Keith

  Fortescue, Tim

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Foster, Sir John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Steel, David

  Fowler, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fry, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maude, Angus

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

  Goodhart, Phillip

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gower, Raymond

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple, John M.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Green, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Grieve, Percy

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tilney, John

  Grylis, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  Trew, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Money, Ernle

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Waddington, David

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera

  Mudd, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Wall, Patrick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Walters, Dennis

  Havers, Michael

  Heave, Airey

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hay, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Normanton, Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hiley, Joseph

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Osborn, John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hopson, Emlyn

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 250.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES

  [9.45 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Emery, Peter

  Kitson, Timothy

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Farr, John

  Knox, David

  Astor, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Lambton, Antony

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lane, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fidler, Michael

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Balniel, Lord

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Fortescue, Tim

  Longden, Gilbert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Foster, Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Fowler, Norman

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fox, Marcus

  MacArthur, Ian

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Benyon, W.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McLaren, Martin

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gardner, Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Biffen, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Body Richard

  Goodhart, Phillip

  Maddan, Martin

  Boscawen, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madel, David

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gorst, John

  Magginnis, John E.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Braine, Bernard

  Gray, Hamish

  Mather, Carol

  Bray, Ronald

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Chritopher

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Grylls, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Buck, Antony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hamilton, Michael (Sailsbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, Ernie

  Carlisle, Mark

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Channon, Paul

  Havers, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Paul

  Charles (Devizes)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hay, John

  Mudd, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murton, Oscar

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Neave, Airey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Normanton, Tom

  Cooke, Robert

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

  Nott, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Onslow, Carnley

  Cooper, A. E.

  Holland, Philip

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Cordle, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Osborn, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Peter

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Crouch, David

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Curran, Charles

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Percival, Ian

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hunt, John

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen.

  James, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  Dean, Paul

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Dixon, Piers

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Raison, Timothy

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kilfedder, James

  Redmond, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kimball, Marcus

  Reed Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Eden, Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Renton, Rt.Hn. Sir David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Steel, David

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Waddington, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stokes, John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek

  Rost, Peter

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sharples, Richard

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

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

  Tebbit, Norman

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Temple, John M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Simeons, Charles

  Thatcher, Pt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Soref, Harold

  Tilney, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Speed, Keith

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Spence, John

  Trew, Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  Sproat, Iain

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Stainton, Keith

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  NOES

  Albu, Austin

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  John, Brynmor

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Doig, Peter

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ashton, Joe

  Driberg, Tom

  Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunn, James A.

  Judd, Frank

  Barnes, Michael

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Barnett, Joel

  Eadie, Alex

  Kinnock, Neil

  Beaney, Alan

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lambie, David

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lamond, James

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ellis, Tom

  Latham, Arthur

  Bidwell, Sydney

  English, Michael

  Lawson, George

  Bishop, E. S.

  Evans, Fred

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

  Leonard, Dick

  Booth, Albert

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

  Foot, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Ford, Ben

  Lipton, Marcus

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Forrester, John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McBride, Neil

  Cant, R. B.

  Ginsburg, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Carmichael, Neil

  Golding, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McGuire, Michael

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mackie, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Coleman, Donald

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hardy, Peter

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marquand, David

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Cronin, John

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Horam, John

  Mendelson, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Millan, Bruce

  Dalyell, Tam

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Molloy, William

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Murray, Ronald King

  652

  653

  Ogden, Eric

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Roper, John

  Tinn, James

  O'Malley, Brian

  Rose, Paul B.

  Tomney, Frank

  Oram, Bert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Torney, Tom

  Orme, Stanley

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Silkin, Wt. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Sillars, James

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Silverman, Julius

  Wallace, George

  Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watkins, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Small, William

  Weitzman, David

  Pentland, Norman

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Prescott, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Whitlock, William

  Pride, William (Rugby)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Probert, Arthur

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Rankin, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Richard, Ivor

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. Joseph Harper aad

  Roberts,Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

  EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF EMPLOYERS
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ashton: I have been asked by a body which does not have a representative in the House of Commons to bring to the Minister's attention certain anomalies which will arise on the clause.
  Kangaroo courts and star chambers have been referred to today, but the Bill makes no mention of the disciplinary bodies which many employers' associations have. A group of us have tabled an Amendment to Schedule 3, which relates to suspensions or fines imposed on trade unionists by certain employers. Although the Bill provides that unions rules must be approved by the C.I.R., there is no provision that the rules of employers' associations must be so approved.
  The rules I have in mind are those of "undisciplinary" bodies, from which a man can obtain a decision as to whether his suspension or dismissal is unfair.
  Under the Bill it will be possible for there to be suspension for 14 days on full pay, followed by another period of suspension for 14 days, rather on the lines of the South Africa detention laws, and the suspension can be continued in perpetuity,
  654
  even on full pay, without the criticism of unfair dismissal being invoked. An anomaly could arise which is not catered for by the Clause.
  I will give two examples of, behaviour which results indisciplinary action. A miner who takes a cigarette down a coalmine can be suspended, fined or dismissed. A trawlerman going on board drunk can be suspended or fined. In each case the trade union representative sits on the disciplinary body.
  The Professional Footballers' Association is a trade union affiliated to the T.U.C. It works for a bona fide employers' associations from whose disciplinary court there is no appeal. The employers' association has a disciplinary body for the Football Association and the Football League on which the trade union—the Professional Footballers' Association—is not represented.
  A professional footballer can be sent off during a game and, unless he pays the costs of the disciplinary court, he cannot even have a personal hearing. In other words, the court sits in secret without the Press being present and then may sentence him to be suspended for six weeks without pay or to a fine of up to £300 and often the trade unionist is not heard.
  10.0 p.m.
  That might be fine in the case of Georgie Best, Peter Osgood or someone like that who can afford it, but the Professional Footballers' Association is concerned about the lower-paid players in the fourth division who cannot afford it

  655
  but who may well have to face, as trade unionists, £70 or £80 costs of the body which sits to sentence them before they can have a personal hearing.
  In our view—I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members opposite agree—that is a complete denial of any sort of freedom. In effect, it is worse than a kangaroo court because, at least, at a kangaroo court a man has the right to face his accusers. The professional footballer does not have that right unless he pays for it.
  Often, outside evidence such as television films is not admitted in evidence. There have been occasions when the Football Association or the Football League has suspended players for life, taking away their livelihood, following a court case involving bribery or unfair practices, as in the case of Swan, Kaye and Layne. The Professional Footballers' Association in such cases has not even been allowed to represent them at the hearing. It has been a completely open and shut case, without proper representation.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The truth is that every professional football player is permitted to be represented by someone who can speak for him, whether someone in the club or a representative of the Professional Footballers' Association. Furthermore, the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made is quite contrary to the truth, for, only the other day, when a player was suspended, there was a run-through of the television film in evidence.
  Mr. Ashton: That is not generally true about the run-through of television films, although it is desired, and Mr. Cliff Lloyd, the secretary of the P.F.A., assures us that players are not allowed to have legal aid or to be legally represented.
  It is easy in such circumstances for an employers' association like the Football Association or the Football League to run a disciplinary court which is totally unfair to the trade unionists involved. It may be said that the trade unionists concerned should take industrial action, should refuse to play, or should refuse to sign contracts. But in many cases they sign their contracts at the tender age of 16 or 17, and the registration is held by the club.
  656
  It is possible for the club to deprive a player of his livelihood simply because he said something on television which the employers do not like. There was the case of Jack Charlton who referred to a certain incident on television, using the same right of free speech which any hon. Member would wish to exercise, but he lost money by being dropped out of the England team because of it, and with no right of appeal because of a rule operated by an employers' association which said that he should not say anything which the employers thought might bring the game into disrepute.
  We say that the rule books of employers' associations, too, should be open to examination by a reference to the C.I.R. Also, we draw attention to the suspension tactic, which is not prevalent in just one industry. Just before Christmas, there was the case of Mr. Terry Devey, reported in The Times and covered in full in my local newspaper, the Sheffield Morning Telegraph. I give credit to the investigation which it made.
  Terry Devey is a shop steward who was paid £3,000 [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that hon. Members do not think that I am mentioning it because I am having a bitter battle about the "demo" the other night. Compensation of £3,000 was paid to Mr. Terry Devey afer a five-week dispute at Batchelors in Sheffield, which closely affected many of my constituents.
  After the men had lost five weeks' strike pay, just before Christmas, the shop steward accepted £3,000 rehabilitation money, as it was called. I do not know whether it was provided in the employers' association rule book that one could break procedures which had been laid down or break the usual methods for settling disputes in that way. It is certainly a tactic which has never been used to my knowledge, and it is one which we do not want to see adopted again. Employers' associations' rule books are far from ideal.
  I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I hope the Minister will look at the question of suspension, particularly when the trade unionists and the trade unions do not have proper rights of representation.
  Mr. Swain: My hon. Friend does his homework very diligently in the main,

  657
  but apparently he has not done so this time. If a man takes a cigarette down a pit, that is a breach of the mines regulations. The manager deals with it, and if the trade union representative thinks that the sentence is too severe, he makes representations to the management. The trade union does not sit on the disciplinary court.
  Mr. Ashton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that there are the powers to make representations to the management. That is part of the negotiating procedure. But if the Professional Footballers' Association feels that someone has been dealt with too harshly for telling the referee that he does not like his face, the association has no power to appeal against the sentence.
  I hope that the Minister will look at this question of suspensions. It could lead to a South African-detention type of law, with 14 days, even on full pay, renewed every 14 days, without the employer bothering to dismiss the man or go to the court. Under the existing set-up, the matter could not be referred to the court, because the man would still be employed and the employer would still be paying his stamp and, in some cases, his basic wage. It is a major anomaly that should be examined.
  The Solicitor-General: If I respond briefly, it is not out of any disrespect for the hon. Gentleman's point, because I know that it represents the same argument as underlies the Amendment he has tabled to Schedule 3.
  The rôle played by employers' associations in some situations in disciplining employees is distinct from any provisions in the Bill. The provisions of the Clause are those which regulate and define employers' associations. Such an organisation vis-à-vis its own members must comply with the same guiding principles under Clause 65, and cannot be registered as an employers' association unless it is shown to have rules conforming to it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the fact that the employers' association, if registered, and even if not registered, is required to be fair to its own members, does not meet the situation he is putting where an association has disciplinary or semi-disciplinary powers over employees. This situation exists in some places, and
  658
  in some cases it is a subject either of collective bargaining or statutory regulation.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) spoke about the coal industry, where it is clear by Statute and collective bargaining that unfair disciplinary measures by the colliery manager can be challenged by the union on behalf of the worker concerned. if what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) says is right, it is plain that there is no comparable machinery in respect of the professional footballer vis-à-vis the association in question. It would be difficult to resolve that in the context of the Bill, because we are not here seeking to regulate relations between employers and individuals by setting up statutory schemes for discipline comparable, for examples, with that set up under the National Docks Labour Board. It requires a very special exercise of analysis to devise something like that.
  Quite apart from the relevance, admissibility or acceptability of the hon. Gentleman's point in the context of this legislation, certainly the Department of Employment would be more than willing to meet such people as are appropriate to investigate further the facts underlying the point the hon. Gentleman raised to see whether, even if not within the Bill, it is something in respect of which help or guidance could be given.
  I hope that, in the circumstances, that will be regarded as a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

  APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT REGISTRARS
  The Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 737, in page 46, line 6, leave out subsection (2), standing in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the names of other hon. Members.
  Mr. Heffer: I will be very brief, Sir Robert. I will merely say—under protest, not moved.
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. John Page: I shall also make a very short speech on the question of the appointment of the registrar. We listened with great interest earlier to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who said that she accepted the view of registration and the idea that there should be some supervision of trade union rules in relation to accountancy, ballots, membership, election of officers and so on. It seems that the only parts of the Bill objected to would be Clause 61(7) and paragraphs 6 and 10 of Schedule 3. It seems, therefore, that it would be appropriate that the Registrar and his assistants should have legal training of some sort.
  Can my hon. and learned Friend explain whether the whole of the responsibilities of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies as they apply to trade unions will be transferred to the new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations? I do not believe that this is made clear in the Bill. This move would be in connection with the investments of trade unions and employers associations and the handling of questions in connection with political funds and their rules. These are the main categories on which we would like elucidation.
  Mr. Atkinson: May I recall our earlier discussions and ask the Solicitor-General to give a reply about the existence of friendly societies? Can he tell us whether an unregistered union can continue to register under the Friendly Societies Act in the way in which it has done over the years? Is an unregistered union prevented from doing so, even though a sectional exclusion is mentioned in the Bill?
  The Solicitor-General: I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), because he raised it in an earlier discussion. The position is that a trade union—indeed an organisation of workers registered or unregistered—is not under this Bill entitled to register under the Friendly Societies Act. This is as a result of Clause 140(1)(b).
  I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that the Bill transfers to the new Registrar of Trade Unions the functions of the present Registrar of Friendly Societies in relation to the Registrar
  of trade unions the functions of the present Registrar of friendly Societies in relation to the registration of trade unions and in relation to trade unions. That is provided for by Schedule 7. It does not transfer what I might call the friendly society functions; although this does not prevent the possibility of the same person holding the registrarship of both friendly societies and trade unions. This is hiving-off the trade unions from the Registrar of Friendly Societies' work but not the other aspects. I hope that sufficiently explains the position.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Atkinson: May we assume from what the Solicitor-General says that he is conscious of the amount of money involved for the average non-registered trade union, which would have to find an enormous sum of money?
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, I noted that point the hon. Gentleman made of that. The size of the funds will vary not only according to the size of the union, but according to a whole range of factors affecting its history, and the larger funds are associated with some of the older unions, as the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Atkinson: It could be £¾ million.
  The Solicitor-General: I noted the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave. It is clear that an organisation which was unregistered could not qualify as a friendly society, but, once registered, it could immediately recover, or continue, all the benefits currently available under the Incomes and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, in respect of provident society funds, which is what it now enjoys. Under the 1871 Act, registration enables a trade union to enjoy the benefits of a friendly society in respect of provident funds, while registration under the Bill would carry the same consequences, but it would not be admissible for an unregistered organisation.
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 253.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES

  [10.16 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Astor, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Balniel, Lord

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Batsford, Brian

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maude, Angus

  Bell, Ronald

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Benyon, W.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gray, Hamish

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

  Body, Richard

  Green, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Moate, Roger

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grylls, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Money, Ernie

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gurden, Harold

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Braine, Bernard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monro, Hector

  Bray, Ronald

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brinton, Sir Talton

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mudd, David

  Bryan, Paul

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Buck, Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Heave, Airey

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Havers, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hay, John

  Nott, John

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Onslow, Cranley

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heseltine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  Channor, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  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

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Percival, Ian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Clegg, Walter

  Hornby, Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cooke, Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Coombs, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hunt, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cordle, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cormack, Patrick

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Costain, A. P.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Redmond, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Curran, Charles

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dean, Paul

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kirk, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Knox, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Eden, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sharples, Richard

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

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

  Simeons, Charles

  Emery, Peter

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Farr, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

  Fell, Anthony

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Fidler, Michael

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Steel, David

  Foster, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fowler, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.).

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fry, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stokes, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gardner, Edward

  Marten, Neil

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mather, Carol

  Tapsell, Peter

  662

  663

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

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

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  van Strauhenzee, W. R.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Temple, John M.

  Waddington, David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Waller, David (Clitheroe)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walker, Rt. Hrs. Peter (Worcester)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Younger, Hn. George

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Walters, Dennis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tilney, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Tim Fortesque.

  Trew, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisie)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ashby, Jack

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Barnes, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Barnett, Joel

  Foot, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

  Beaney, Alan

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bishop, E. S.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bienkinsop, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Booth, Albert

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Golding, John

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marquand, David

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Brown, Hugh D. (rgow, Provan)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Meacher, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hamling, William

  Milian, Bruce

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Cohen, Stanley

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Coleman, Donald

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oram, Bert

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Orme, Stanley

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Oswald, Thomas

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  John, Brynmor

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Judd, Frank

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Probert, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Rankin, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshlre, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Roes, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Richard, Ivor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Dunned, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roper, John

  664

  665

  Rose, Paul B.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Watkins, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Strang, Gavin

  Weitzman, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Taverne, Dick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitlock, William

  Sillars, James

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman, Julius

  Tinn, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tomney, Frank

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Small, William

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Urwin, T. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Varley, Eric G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

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

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wallace, George

  Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS
  Mr. Heller: I beg to move Amendment No. 741, in page 47, line 9, leave out 'reasonably well' and insert:
  'eligible under the rules of the organisation to be admitted as a member and'.
  In some respects, this Amendment is a continuation of the previous debate. We have reached the crucial Clause 61 which the trade union movement finds particularly obnoxious and which, as a result of the powers given to the Registrar by it, means we are at least heading for a corporate State. Certainly it is corporate State thinking.
  We think that the words "reasonably well" are dangerous and can lead to a series of complications within unions and can dilute the character of some unions, particularly those which are craft based.
  [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
  10.30 p.m.
  The trade union to which I belong, which is a craft organisation, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, has just united with the Association of Building Trade Technicians, with the bricklayers' union and with the painters' union. I say this for the benefit of those hon. Members opposite who believe that the trade union movement never makes any progress towards amalgamations and unifications. The facts are that within that united organisation we shall continue to have trade sections. For example, it would be unrealistic if a bricklayer was in exactly the section as a joiner or if a joiner was in the same section as a painter, and so on. That is so obvious it hardly needs to be said, but it is important to point the facts.
  We do not regard the number of years of apprenticeship, be they four or five or whatever may be the figure, as magic figures. There has been some argument over the years about what the apprenticeship period should be. I myself was in apprenticeship for seven years. At one time it went down to five years, and has now gone down to four. We argue that the number of years can be varied according to the type of training required to carry out a particular job. Therefore, we
  668
  must be flexible in the matter of apprenticeship.
  My organisation accepts workers who have been trained in Government training centres. There was some argument about this matter. Naturally, in areas of high unemployment workers are deeply concerned about workers trained in Government centres who can take work in a particular trade after only a short period of such training. But we have been flexible and have taken in those members in certain circumstances and conditions. However, the Clause says that we have to open our doors to an unlimited number of workers whether or not we wish to have them. The only requirement is that they should be "reasonably well qualified members of the organisation. What is meant by "reasonably well qualified"?
  One hon. Member opposite said he felt a little disquiet over this point. The Solicitor-General mentioned in this connection people trained as solicitors or barristers. He said that to be a barrister one had to be a member of the Bar Council, but a person could operate in that profession if he had the qualifications and did not have to belong to a trade union. In our trade union we have to have definite qualifications. If anybody believes that without years of training they can make or hang those doors at the other end of the Chamber, then they do not understand that ours is a highly qualifield and skilled craft. Part of our trade union organisation involves the maintenance of skilled craftsmanship as an important element of our system. Yet the Bill says that they have to be "reasonably well qualified". That is all.
  What does "reasonably well qualified" mean? There are people who pick up the trade and become what we call bodgers. They do all kinds of odd jobs, and make an absolute mess of them. Nevertheless, it could be argued that they are "reasonably well qualified" and that the union must accept them. If the union does not accept them, they can make a complaint. It is not just a question of acceptance of Clause 61—
  Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)Mr. John Hall (Wycombe) rose——
  Mr. Heller: Clause 62 specifically states:
  "It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any organisation of workers, or any official

  669
  of or person acting on behalf of such an organisation, to take or threaten to take any action against any member of the organisation or other person in contravention of the principles set out in section 61 of this Act."
  That deals particularly with subsection (7).
  1 think that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) wished to intervene.
  Mr. John Hall: Only because 1 should not want to see that unflattering description of bodgers go unchallenged. "Bodger" is the name given to craftsmen who turn out chair legs in the furniture industry, and they do their job well.
  Mr. Heffer: I am talking about bodgers in the building industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they do not turn out chair legs very well.
  Incidentally, for the hon. Gentleman's information, although I am sure that he knows, my union, A.S.W., and N.U.F.T.O. have an agreement to accept each other's cards, because it is recognised that the members of each union are trained craftsmen, able to do woodworking of one kind or another, who may from time to time have to exchange their particular industries.
  That, incidentally, raises another point relating to an agency shop or the sole bargaining agency. In a shop where the A.S.W. became the sole bargaining agent, N.U.F.T.O. members would have to join the A.S.W. or become non-unionists, or vice versa. This is one further example of the complication in the Bill.
  Trade unions will be faced with the problem that their strength is likely to be undermined because they have to accept people who are not acceptable. The membership would be taken out of their control in that sense and would be determined by the registrar. It would also be damaging to the skills of the particular trades.
  I should like to point out what Donovan says about admission in paragraph 650:
  "The rules should state who is qualified for admission to the trade union … but"—
  this is the point—
  "unions must be allowed to retain discretion in deciding whom they should admit."
  The Solicitor-General: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the clause which lies between the two Clauses which he read? It is not even a continuous quotation. if the hon. Gentleman will start at the beginning of paragraph 650 and read the first two sentences the Committee will have the meaning.
  Mr. Heffer: Certainly. It says:
  "They should be framed in such a way as to avoid discriminating arbitrarily against any type of applicant, but unions must be allowed to retain discretion in deciding whom they should admit."
  That is precisely what happens now in my organisation. That is the position.
  I think that I was a little more courteous to the Solicitor-General just now in giving way than he was to me, because when I wanted to intervene when he was speaking during the last debate he refused to give way. I do not know why. I have never refused to give way to anybody, whether I have been on the back benches, or speaking from this Box. At no time have I refused to give way, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be equally courteous when we debate issues of fundamental importance to the trade union movement.
  The situation referred to in the Donovan Report is precisely that which exists in most trade unions, and certainly in my organisation. We have rules by which a person can apply for membership. If the branch turns him down—because he has to apply to the branch—he must be told at the branch meeting, and at that point he has the right of appeal to the national executive committee, and there have been occasions when, on appeal to the national executive, the executive has decided to allow the person concerned into the organisation. That happens now. We do not need the law to provide for that, and it is obvious that in introducing this proposal the Solicitor-General is unnecessarily introducing a law at a stage at which it is not needed.
  Trade union rules are flexible in relation to the admittance of people into trade union organisations. During an earlier debate, I think that it was the Solicitor-General himself who said that all the Government were hoping to do by having this guiding principle was to bring the backward trade unions up to the standards of the best unions, but this proposal goes

  671
  beyond that. The Bill says that people must be accepted by trade unions whether the trade unions want them or not. I have already referred to the problem of unemployment. If there is a high level of unemployment, why should a trade union be forced, in those circumstances, to accept people whom it has no wish to accept?
  There are many arguments about what "reasonably well qualified" means. Who, for example, is a "reasonably well qualified" docker? Most hon. Gentlemen opposite would not last five minutes on Liverpool docks. None of them is reasonably well qualified to be a Liverpool docker, and neither am I. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, someone could be regarded as being reasonably well qualified. One has only to ask what the phrase means to realise just how absurd it is.
  I shall ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment, and I trust that on this occasion the Solicitor-General, or the Secretary of State, will accept the force of the argument that is put forward and realise that we are arguing a sensible and practical case. This is important to craft trade unions in particular, and to all trade unions in general. This is a matter of great importance to us, and we ask the Government to accept that the Amendment is put forward in the best interests of the trade union movement.
  The Solicitor-General: Before replying to the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the Amendment, may I say that I hope that I have always tried to give way as often and as graciously as I can and should. If I was discourteous to the hon. Gentleman during the previous debate, I apologise, but one has always to judge between making progress in the debate and in one's speech, and being over-generous in giving way. I certainly did not intend to be discourteous to him.
  10.45 p.m.
  In this subsection the Government do not intend to prevent organisations laying down their own standards and rules. It is clear that the organisation can prepare its own rules. We say that a prospective member
  "… shall not, by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, be excluded from membership …"
  672
  so that the person who is reasonably well qualified for employment should not be arbitrarily or unreasonably discriminated against. This leaves it entirely free for a union or organisation to lay down clear and specific grounds on which a person shall not be admitted or should be expelled. A person with a bad membership record would not have any right to admission. A person with no qualifications at all or who had manifestly poor qualifications would not be entitled to admission. We accept the case for the concept of craft unions and qualifications. The unions have played their part in asserting and raising standards. But there comes a point where qualifications defined in that way are being used as the foundation for excluding people who ought to be entitled to be admitted to particular kinds of work.
  If one has, for example, a rule—as one has in some unions—that only a son or grandson of a former union member or a former employee in a particular kind of work should be admitted, how can that be justified? Suppose that people who are superlatively qualified by any standards for the trade which that union is regulating are confronted with rules which say, "I am sorry, but whatever your qualifications you cannot be admitted because you do not meet this arbitrary …"—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like the House of Lords.
  The Solicitor-General: I am trying to get to the argument of the debate. It may be asserted by some hon. Members opposite that entry should be founded upon the hereditary principle. I have not heard it widely argued.
  I suggest that it would not be acceptable to either side of the Committee to accept the existence of arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination in respect of well qualified people.
  We accept the case for sections and branches. The wording of the Clause:
  "Any person who applies for membership of the organisation, or of a branch or section of the organisation …"
  makes perfectly clear that different standards of qualification for different skills in different branches and sections would be acceptable. I take the point about the ex tent to which unions are merging. One of the ways of facilitating

  673
  this is the existence of different sections with different skills, as part of the conglomerate. We accept that reasonable standards should be laid down. The only point on which we insist is that there should not be arbitrary discrimination against the background of reasonable qualification.
  Mr. John Hall: I am worried about the definition of "reasonably well". I see the difficulties which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has raised. Looking at it practically, I find it hard to understand how one could define "reasonably well qualified". Is it not possible to delete those two words and leave it as "qualified"? What would be the disadvantage of doing it in that way?
  The Solicitor-General: I take my hon. Friend's point. It marches in line with my next point, and I will answer it.
  In the Report of the Donovan Commission, there are two paragraphs dealing with the relationship between training and the right of admission to organisations. Paragraph 358 says:
  "Once objective standards have been laid down by which qualification for skilled work can be judged, trade unions should review their rule books and make any revision of the rules necessary to ensure that no qualified worker will be arbitrarily denied either the right of admission to the union or the right to use the skills which he has acquired. Failing this, any worker who alleges that he or she is qualified to do skilled work but has nevertheless been refused membership of the union … should have the right of appeal to the independent review body …"
  In that paragraph, the word is exactly as my hon. Friend puts it: "qualified", rather than "reasonably well qualified". The intention is that people who are qualified should have the right of admission. But, in many sections of industry at the moment, we have not got clearly laid down objective qualifications. It is a matter which will have to be judged, as we think, in the light of conditions in the industry and in the light of the applicant concerned.
  To say "qualified" would imply a plainly identifiable standard. If one takes the case of people who have been through Government training centres and who have achieved qualifications which may not march in line with any statutory
  674
  or clear standard or any pre-existing union standard, we think that the tribunal which will consider this should be entitled to say whether they are "reasonably well qualified". It is in order to provide that flexibility that the provision is worded in that way. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps I might press the hon. and learned Gentleman a little further on this, because it may help the Committee to understand precisely what "qualification" can mean.
  The word can have a variety of meanings. An apprentice, for instance, is obviously qualified when he has served his time. One can have other circumstances in which a person has no qualification that he can present, other than the fact that he has been offered a job. That might be considered a reasonable qualification. Would a union be acting arbitrarily and unreasonably if it refused admission to someone who had no job on the ground that he would be adding to the unemployment in the area, or could it properly refuse admission because the person had not the necessary qualification of an offer of employment?
  The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the sector with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The possession or non-possession of a job probably would be difficult to identify as a reasonably good qualification. On the other hand, the length of service in a job of the same kind would probably amount to a qualification.
  In the case of Equity, X years' or months' service in previous jobs could well be regarded as qualification by service—as one of several; there are others. There are no precise and exact qualifications or certificates. Cases would have to be looked at according to the conditions of the industry and the union operating in it.
  We cannot accept that there is any single magic statutory form of qualification which can be encapsulated more precisely than others. On the other hand, we cannot accept that, against the background of reasonable standards, a union should be entitled to exclude from employment in a trade someone who is manifestly qualified for the job and being arbitrarily and unreasonably excluded from it.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the word "well" required? Would it not be enough to be reasonably qualified?
  The Solicitor-General: There is some force in that point. The word "qualified" by itself implied too precise and objective a standard. "Reasonably" modifies that, but "reasonably well" might modify it too far. We shall certainly look at this again.
  Mr. John Hall: Do not both qualifications imply a subjective judgment, which can vary from individual to individual? This is why I object to it, because it is not sufficiently precise. Legislation should be precise. One is either qualified or not qualified.
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) made a reasonable case about the craft unions, and there is another complex point about the general worker unions, like dock workers. Entry of the industry often starts with a sort of routine operation, and one proceeds to the more skilled operations on ships and in the docks.
  The phrase "reasonably well qualified" can be interpreted in so many ways. Those who applied for the more skilled occupations on the docks and aboard ships would naturally say that some part of the labour force needed no expertise or qualifications, and they could call in aid this terminology.
  People who were well qualified might be the subject of argument as to whether they were "reasonably" well qualified. I can imagine a heyday for those who use words and law as an occupation and who would make the reverse argument, that a man could be reasonably qualified but not well qualified. The situation for these unions is too blurred for clear definition, and this would be bad law.
  With these other occupations, for which there are no diplomas or professional standing, people might transfer from one occupation to another, because of unemployment, on the basis that they were reasonably well qualified for any occupation. This would never do.
  I am more concerned with the case law which would follow this legislation. Might not any court conclude that no
  676
  one could be debarred from membership on the basis that he did not possess the appropriate qualifications?
  Paragraph 650 of Donovan shows that the unions have the necessary knowledge and information to protect their rules and constitution, and therefore shows those who are eligible for membership of the various general worker unions, and the various crafts and firms and extra specialities involved. This would be adequately covered by the Amendment. It would cover the situation to such an extent that there would be no dubiety.
  If the Secretary of State is concerned about registration and believes that the Clauses concerning registration would provide adequate protection, I cannot understand his reluctance to accept the concept that the trade unions should be left, with their experience, to draw up appropriate rules; because the Registrar, under preceding Clauses, would have the control and, if he thought that the rules did not sufficiently indicate the qualifications which would be necessary to secure membership, he could ask that they be stated in the rules. The Amendment is far better in its approach, application and effect than the words in the Bill.
  11 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has undertaken to look at the Clause again. One of the difficulties facing us arises because of the varying skills required of different craftsmen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and myself have a reasonable knowledge of conditions and practices in the building industry. There are many trades in that industry where this provision might cause confusion.
  I suggest a simple solution. "Reasonably well qualified" could lead to difficulties of interpretation. Will the Solicitor-General consider adding "having regard to the skills required in that craft", which would make it easier to interpret the provision if a court ruling was required?
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If the Amendment were accepted the Clause would read thus:
  "Any person who applies for membership of the organisation, or of a branch or section of the organisation, and who …

  677
  (b) is eligible under the rules of the organisation to be admitted as a member and qualified for employment as a worker of that description."
  What has been said on both sides has indicated that the Amendment should commend itself to reasonable people. The uncertainty of the situation has been mentioned. This could lead to a tightening of admission clauses.
  Equity exercises no determination in respect of qualifications. It leaves this question entirely in the hands of the employer. If the employer thinks sufficiently well of the person concerned to give him a contract, the union accepts that and does not attempt to determine whether the person is qualified.
  I ask hon. Members to consider what can happen if the concept of reasonable qualification, which is within the union's determination, is introduced. If a pop singer wanted to follow in the tracks of Tommy Steele and the National Theatre wanted to cast him in the role of Bottom or what-have-you, that pop singer would have no qualification, never having undertaken any training of that sort. The union is to be given the power to determine casting, something which the union has rejected hitherto. Equity has always said, "It is not our role to say whether or not pop singer Tommy Steele shall or shall not appear at the National Theatre." Parliament is now saying to Equity, "It is your job to say whether Tommy Steele or his successor or the man who follows his successor is reasonably qualified to do this, that or the other."
  I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General said what was imputed to him by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), namely, that he was ready to examine the Clause again and come back on Report with a new proposal. Persuasive arguments have been put from both sides of the Committee, and it may be that the Secretary of State is prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands. I think that he would have great difficulty in improving upon it. But, if he does not accept it as it stands, will he say that he recognises the force of the case which has been put, he will consider the matter, and come back on Report with a proposal designed to meet it? I do not know, not having discussed it with them, but I imagine that, if we
  678
  have a firm assertion of that sort, my hon. Friends might be prepared not to press the Amendment to a Division.
  I shall be interested to hear the Government's view. For my part, if we have a firm assurance in those terms—and it must be firm—I should be ready to accept it instead of going into the Lobby on the Amendment.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to people who take courses at Government training centres and acquire new skills. There is a Government training centre at Manchester which was opened about four years ago. When I visited the centre at about that time I was told—I think that the Minister of Labour made the same point in opening the centre—that it was a great pity that virtually no engineering training could be undertaken there. I think that the only engineering trade taught at that time was welding, which was not covered by the Amalgamated Engineering Union.
  The reason for that gap in the training facilities was that the district branch of the A.E.U. would not allow any trainee who came out of that G.T.C. to join the union. The hon. Gentleman notes that I speak of the district branch——
  Mr. Heller: The district committee.
  Mr. Woodhouse: The district committee. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. At the material time, the district organiser was Mr. Hugh Scanlon, who is now—is this right?—the general secretary of the union at its national headquarters.
  Mr. Heller: The president.
  Mr. Woodhouse: The president, I beg his pardon.
  The hon. Gentleman said—I can understand the point—that in areas of high unemployment there was a natural reluctance to admit to the union people who had not gone through the normal period of apprenticeship. But an area of high unemployment is an area where firms are reluctant to open new plants, and often the reason for their reluctance is the lack of skilled labour in the area. So the union is, in effect, promoting a vicious circle: it will not allow trainees from the G.T.C. into the union, and the area remains one of high unemployment—a development

  679
  area, a depressed area, however one chooses to call it.
  I understand that that practice in the Manchester area is still followed by the successor organisation, the A.E.W.U. I have no doubt that it would not be acceptable under the terms of the Clause as drafted. I should be very glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that that practice is defensible, and how it would be affected by the Amendment, if at all.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) put the industry side very well, and was supported by someone on the employers' side of the building industry. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) also gave the picture from the employers' side of the furniture industry.
  My hon. Friend has a point here. The Solicitor-General now admits that it is very difficult to explain the words "reasonably well qualified". He does not know whether "reasonably" or "well" should be left in, but he evidently thinks that "qualified" should be left in.
  I do not know why the trade unions should be restricted like this. They should be the ones to decide who should or should not be admitted. I do not see why they should be tied to a restriction on whether a person is reasonably well qualified, or qualified at all. They should decide, in the same way as I am sure the Institute of Directors would not admit my hon. Friend. He would rightly say that he would not want to be admitted. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the sotto voce interjection that it would say that he is not qualified. I agree, because he is not a director. I also heard a comment from an hon. Member opposite about the Stock Exchange. It has very restrictive rules. I think that members have to pay £76,000 to join. I suppose that being able to pay that could be argued as being "reasonably qualified".
  The Solicitor-General made a little aside that rather upset me and, I am sure, my hon. Friend. He made a slighting reference to dockers restricting membership of their union to the family, the son of the father. I asked whether the House of Lords did not restrict its membership to the sons of the fathers, with the qualification that they must not be certified
  680
  as lunatics. Apart from that they can be anything. They can be crooks. They can follow their fathers and be called "reasonably well qualified".
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has always been an opponent of the proposition that hereditary qualification is reasonable. I find it difficult to understand why he should propose that it is reasonable in this case, when he has spent many hours of the time of the House attacking it in another case.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It was not I who said it but the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was attacking the dockers for carrying out something which he supports. I am not defending the dockers. All I am saying is that they are only doing something which the Solicitor-General and the Government have been doing by maintaining an institution which has been going on for 700 years. f the right hon. and learned Gentleman is attacking one as an example, he should attack both.
  Another aspect of this matter concerns safety. There are many people who call themselves handymen, particularly in heating, plumbing and ventilation. As has been mentioned, the term in the building trade vernacular is "bodgers". Does the Solicitor-General realise how dangerous the activities of these people can be to life and limb? They establish one-man businesses for the installation of central heating systems which are often death traps. The national Press has taken up this matter. A man who is a bit disreputable and not qualified in the strict sense of the word may say that he is "reasonably well qualified" because he has installed several central heating systems. But they may be faulty and may not work from the date of installation and be a danger to the public. He may say, "The union will not be able to refuse me a ticket because I have shown that I am 'reasonably well qualified', and under the terms of the Bill I shall demand a ticket".
  Mrs. Smith, having seen the publicity in the Press about being careful of the activities of these "bodgers" installing heating and ventilation systems, may say, "Before you start, I want to see your

  681
  qualifications". He will say, "You have heard of the A.E.U., which is a craftsmen's union? Here is my ticket". By law, he will have to have a ticket, even though he may not be qualified.
  Another illustration which is vital to the safety of life and limb concerns repairs to cars and other vehicles. When I take my car to a garage I know that the engineer is qualified and that the car will be dealt with properly and will be safe to go on the road. [Hon. Members: "Oh"'.] Do hon. Members opposite say that garages do not do a good job? People who have no proof of qualification will be able to get a ticket by saying, "I am a qualified engineer because I have by law been admitted into the engineering union". The union concerned will not be able to refuse him a ticket.
  Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I do not think that in discriminating against such a person a union would be accused of being either "arbitrary" or "unreasonable", and therefore I do not think that such a person would qualify for membership.
  Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Much as I respect and admire his point of view and opinion, the Solicitor-General is the person to whom I must listen because he has admitted that "reasonably well qualified" is open to doubt. As the Clause is drafted, the union would have to admit the person into membership if he can claim that he is "reasonably well qualified". The Solicitor-General has agreed to look at this point because he acknowledges that the wording is too wide.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has again tried to woo the Committee by suggesting that it does not matter really whether the union should be allowed the complete right to decide who should join or who should not join. If we were talking about golf or tennis clubs, that argument would be a good one. But we are not. We are talking about organisations which, in certain sectors of industry, are in a position where their refusal of a union card
  682
  virtually means that a man cannot obtain or keep employment. That is the major point.
  I suppose that one could say that, with the registrar now supervising much more closely the rules of a union, the terms of the Amendment might be sufficient in that members should be those who are
  "… eligible under the rules of the organisation.…"
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Amendment in relation to subsection (2)(b) are covered by the terms of sub-subsection (2)(a), which says,
  … in accordance with the rules of the organisation …"?
  Mr. Mawby: That is true. On the other hand, I see no reason, other than that of tidiness, why, if one thinks a thing worth saying, one should not say it twice. I was attracted to the wording of the Amendment because at present there is no close supervision of union rules and therefore society should have that sort of protection. But under the new Registrar it may well be that the kind of wording proposed will cover the case.
  Clause 61(2) seeks to prevent a union from acting arbitrarily or operating unreasonable discrimination against a person. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) made the valid point that in most skilled trades or crafts it would not matter much whether one stipulated "reasonably well qualified" or "qualified" or anything else, because there is a recognised standard, which is generally accepted, before a person can become a fully skilled member of the union. We are talking about the kind of people he referred to—those in the theatrical profession, in the docks and so on. Indeed, a whole host of people are concerned.
  My hon. and learned Friend has gone a considerable way in accepting the fact that "reasonably well qualified" may not be the right form of wording and may leave the definition much too wide. I would have thought that "qualified" would be enough, but I hope that he will look at the matter between now and Report to ensure that the wording is such that it will achieve the objective that a union should not be unreasonably required to take into membership a person

  683
  it believes has not the qualifications it would normally require, while ensuring that it cannot operate arbitrary or unfair or unreasonable discrimination against an applicant. This is where the balance must lie.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can assure us that he will study the matter and, if necessary, produce some words on Report to meet the case which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I have intervened before the Solicitor-General because as the debate has proceeded I have begun to realise more sharply than ever the reason for the insertion of the subsection and the misconception on which it is based. The arguments of Government supporters have shown how necessary the Amendment is. Quite apart from exposing the Solicitor-General's complete lack of understanding of trade union rules, they have clearly shown that the situation at which the Government are tilting and which is mentioned in the Report of the Royal Commission and about which we have read so much in the Press in recent years may be described by saying that we are spending a great deal of money on Government training centres to produce the craftsmen necessary for the expansion of industry, but the obstructive attitude of the unions is preventing such people from obtaining employment and so making a contribution to industry.
  This attitude is based on a misunderstanding, and it is a confusion of two separate matters. The Solicitor-General referred to paragraph 358 of the Report of the Royal Commission which mentioned the products of Government training centres. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) referred to a specific situation. What is being discussed is not a man's admission to union membership, or which union it would be appropriate for him to join, but his admission to employment.
  As the hon. Member for Oxford mentioned, the A.E.F., my own union, may I put the record right? I am familiar with the situation in Manchester, having lived for many years close to the Government training centre there. It has been
  684
  established not for four, but more nearly 20 years at Denton. I was formerly a shop stewards convenor of the A.E.U. in that district.
  The attitude of the A.E.F. is that it expects the first opportunity to fill a skilled vacancy to be offered to unemployed time-served skilled craftsmen in the district. If there is none, or if none wishes to occupy the vacancy, it should be offered then to a person appropriately qualified by virtue of experience and service in the establishment where the vacancy has arisen. If, those first two priorities having been met, the vacancy is still unfilled, the union has no objection to a Government trainee occupying it. That seems to be a reasonable position for the A.E.F., and it is not the position of obstinate obduracy about which we have heard so often and which was implied by the hon. Member's description.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  Mr. Woodhouse: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully. Would he deny that it is the case that no engineering skills covered by his union are taught at that Government training centre—for the reasons that I stated. Furthermore, exactly the same criticism I made was made four years ago by his right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Walker: Former Ministers on either side are not oracles and masters of the absolute truth. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), for whom I have a great deal of affection and respect, for the reasons that I have given, I can claim to be more familiar with the situation than he. He relied on the advice of his Department and I think that I know more about that situation than those officials. Hon. Gentlemen must bear in mind that this centre has not attempted for many years to put on courses in engineering, other than a welding course, so it has not tested the situation. Let it do that. Perhaps the hon. Member prefers to rely on the word of the local Engineering Employers Federation. The position in the A.E.F. is as I have described, and I have done it with care because it needs to be placed on the record.

  685
  I said that the situation with which this subsection seeks to deal is not the real problem. The subsection deals with union membership, with whether the man will be accepted for a particular employment situation but hon. Members opposite seem to think that what is at issue is the denial of the man's right to be a member of the A.E.F. It centres around the confusion between the different sections of membership in the A.E.F. and the distinction between section 1 and section 5. There is a common assumption that section 1 is exclusively reserved for craftsmen and if an applicant is not admitted into that section then he cannot, in A.E.F. terms, be a skilled craftsman.
  This shows the error of the subsection to which we are drawing attention. The restrictions imposed on admission under section 1 are not merely restrictions placed upon applicants in terms of craft qualifications. They are restrictions in terms of age, because of the friendly benefit provisions. This is where the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends misunderstand the British trade union movement. One respect at least in which it is near unique among trade union movements throughout the world is in its deep involvement with friendly benefit provisions. It is this which is often a crucial factor in determining to which section an individual should he admitted.
  There may be someone who has served 20 years in a skilled trade in the engineering industry, perhaps as a colliery fitter and therefore a member of the N.U.M. If he leaves the coal mining industry because of contraction there, because of a pit closure, and makes an application to be a fitter in an engineering factory, it may well be that he is denied admission to section 1 of the A.E.F., not because the A.E.F. says that he is an unskilled man, but because we say that he has passed the age of 40. That age is inserted because of actuarial considerations in determining superannuation benefit that goes with that section of membership. This is the point at issue in our Amendment and this is why we seek the insertion of these words.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey (Birmingham, Perry Barr): I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has arrived at that position, because my feeling is that the 50- and 60-year-
  686
  olds—the hon. Member takes it down even to the 40-year-olds—are denied reasonable access. Is that hon. Gentleman honestly saying that to his fellow members?
  Mr. Walker: I am sorry; perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am trying to say that the widespread assumption that the distinctions which are drawn between the sections in the A.E.F. are based exclusively on craft or otherwise is false.
  Let me read quickly from the A.E.F. "blue book" and quote the relevant part of the rule relating to admission into section 1. This is the green card section. I have my green card in my pocket—paid in advance, I might say. I quote:
  "A candidate into section 1 who has worked three years in the workshop in addition to at least four years in the engineering department of a technical school shall be eligible. Candidates into section 1 shall be at least 19 and less than 40 years of age."
  I said that that age band is chosen because one of the crucial differences between section 1 and other sections of membership is that it provides a superannuation benefit, and the superannuation fund has to be operated on an actuarial basis taking age considerations into account.
  Let me turn to section 5 membership, the rule for which states that this section is open to
  "Any male person between the ages of 19 and 50 years employed in the engineering trade. … Candidates desiring skilled status must produce evidence as provided in Rule 23"—
  that is, evidence of having served the appropriate number of years. That makes quite clear that an individual can still be a skilled man in section 5 enjoying fully-skilled status. The only reason why he is driven into section 5 instead of section 1 is that the age factor hinges on the superannuation benefit.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Nothing that the hon. Gentleman is saying makes any difference to the rule book that he is reading. If the rules are aceptable to the registrar, subsection (2), which has two paragraphs, (a) and (b), which run together, read together and are one sentence, provides that the worker must not only be reasonably well qualified, but must be of a description which is
  "in accordance with the rules of the organisation".

  687
  It does not, therefore, make any difference.
  Mr. Walker: If I believed that the hon Member was right, I should be urging my hon. Friends to reconsider whether we should divide. Subsection (2) states, however:
  "is a worker of the description, or (as the case may be) of one of the descriptions, of which, in accordance with the rules of the organisation, the organisation or that branch or section, as the case may be, is intended".
  It is "the description". That seems to me to say that irrespective of age, if under paragraph (b) a person is deemed to be reasonably well qualified, he can say "I can produce evidence of having served the requisite number of years in a fully-skilled trade. I therefore demand admission into section 1 of the A.E.F." That is what it seems to me to say. [HON MEMBERS: "No."]
  If the Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General tell me that I am absolutely wrong, perhaps we should look at it again. Until we are convinced that we are wrong, however, I say that there is no reasonable objection to inserting the words of our Amendment, which seems to me to be reasonable and is carefully constructed. In any event, if the Government accept that what I have said should be the case, that will only underpin what we are seeking. Consequently, it should not be objectionable and, therefore, should be acceptable.
  I hope, therefore, that when the Minister replies, he will say that the subsection means what I want it to mean and, therefore, he will have no objection to inserting the words which we suggest to make it clear beyond peradventure, because they could not be harmful. If he says otherwise, we must press our Amendment to a Division.
  I hope that I have cleared up once and for all that silly nonsense we hear about the denial of the right to work for people who have attended Government training centres or such a denial because people are not admitted to skilled status in the A.E.U. At the same time I hope we have demonstrated that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what union rule books are all about.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith): My hon. Friend has been dealing with the problem of what is meant by "reasonably well qualified", and he has no doubt noticed that subsection (3) uses the phrase "reasonable notice". Does he think the use of this term in the Clause has any significance in view of the power given to the Registrar in Clause 71 to examine the rules? Does he regard this as a means of letting the Registrar interfere directly with the rules of the union?
  Mr. Walker: My hon. and learned Friend has put his finger on a crucial weakness in the provision.
  The Solicitor-General: The premise of this debate is that there are situations in which unions can control a man's right of access to a job by controlling his right of access to membership of a union. The examples given by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) and Totnes (Mr. Mawby) made that point. In these circumstances, we cannot acknowledge a union's right, any more than did Donovan, totally to control access to membership of people qualified by skill, craft and training for work in such a way to allow the union unreasonably and arbitrarily to exclude those people from jobs. That is both the starting and finishing point of the matter.
  We attach importance to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on the need for some control of a union's rules. He attaches importance to the fact that rules are now to be under some kind of regulation and control as giving the safeguard that is needed. It is right that in Clause 71 the Registrar will have to see that the rules of registered unions dealing with matters such as the right of admission to a union are in accordance with these general principles. That is the central point.
  On the precise formulation of the matter, I take note of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who speak with experience in different industries, that all we want to achieve is that a person qualified for employment has access in the last resort to membership of a union and cannot be excluded by arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination.

  689
  We are willing to look again at the words "reasonably well qualified" to see that they march in line with the point made in the Donovan Report. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) when describing the Manchester rules of the A.E.F. use the phrase "appropriately qualified by their experience and skills". There are many different ways of formulating this, and we would be willing to look at the matter.
  I regret that we cannot accept the wording of the Amendment that eligibility under the rules of the organisation to be admitted as a member is a sufficient test. If we were to accept those words, it would mean that a union could write into its rules, any kind of conditions it likes as to eligibility. We cannot accept that, although we are prepared to look again at the way in which we formulate the right of people qualified for work to get into unions. We cannot accept the Amendment because we cannot concede that amount of control over the structure of their rules to unions, registered or unregistered.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Hilton: I strongly urge the Solicitor-General to think again. No one involved in industrial relations can lightly view a Government interfering with and directing independent organisations as to the members they should accept.
  I say that people involved in industrial relations cannot view this matter lightly, because every organisation in industrial relations will come within the principle enunciated by the Government. Employers' organisations, although this might not be known to the Government, will come within the same definitions, and many of them are extremely concerned about the Government's intentions.
  I do not think that any promise to examine further whether a man is qualified or reasonably well qualified has any bearing on the matter. The Solicitor-General, to some extent, misunderstands the union position. I do not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he lacks knowledge of the practicalities of unions. But I think that the Committee as a whole must recognise that unions are not merely associations of people qualified to do a certain job. Unions,
  690
  in a great part, when admitting people to membership, take account of ethical and moral considerations. This provision will completely rob them of any right to judge membership of any man or woman on ethical and moral standards. The Government may think that this is not so, but I believe that if the Clause is passed as it is a great deal of interference will take place which cannot be justified.
  The Solicitor-General has made clear what the debate is about. It is not about membership of trade unions at all; it is about the right of a man who is qualified to obtain work within an industry.
  Must union rules be restricted because of the right of a man to work within an industry? It seems odd that a Government dedicated against the closed shop principle should, de facto, by this provision, accept the closed shop situation where a man must be a member of a union to obtain employment.
  I now turn to another point which the Secretary of State might take rather more seriously. This principle will apply de facto to employers' associations and to everyone else concerned in industrial relations. I must here declare an interest. I am associated with the Federation of Builders, which was set up primarily for servicing matters in the industry and to adjudge codes of conduct. That organisation has local admission committees in different localities which judge the ethical and moral standards of people who apply to join.
  According to the Bill, any employer within any industry automatically has the right to join his association, just as any man who is adjudged to be reasonably well qualified has the right to join a union. What will this mean to employers' associations if it becomes law? It will mean that discretion on ethical standards is completely withdrawn from those local admission committees. At the moment a local admission committee might say, "This builder in this locality is well known to be a jerry builder". It will therefore refuse him membership and not have to explain why. If the Clause is accepted as it is, I am sure that any builder so excluded will demand an explanation and the local admission committee, unless its decision to exclude

  691
  stands up in law, cannot refuse him membership.
  Some people may ask: why should anyone be excluded on hearsay evidence? I am merely saying that the position will be extremely serious. It emphasises what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—that to introduce legal proceedings in cases like this will lead to a great deal of distortion of membership in all organisations in industrial relations.
  I put the case forward with sincerity, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will look again at what is an extremely grave matter—that of the House of Commons interfering with the rights of independent organizations to adjudge what calibre members they will admit.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 254, Noes 285.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES

  [11.51 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dunn, James A.

  Kelley, Richard

  Albu, Austen

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kinnock, Neil

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lamond, James

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Latham, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  Ellis, Tom

  Lawson, George

  Atkinson, Norman

  English, Michael

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Evans, Fred

  Leonard, Dick

  Barnes, Michael

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Beaney, Alan

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ford, Ben

  Loughlin, Charles

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McBride, Neil

  Bradley, Tom

  Garrett, W. E.

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McElhone, Frank

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

  Ginsburg, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Golding, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Buchan, Norman

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mackie, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Carmichael, Neil

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Marquand, David

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Concannon. J. D.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Cobert, Mrs. Freda

  Horam, John

  Mendelson, John

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mikardo, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Millan, Bruce

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Molloy, William

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhodda, E.)

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ogden, Eric

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  John, Brynmor

  O'Malley, Brian

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oram, Bert

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dempsey, James

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Dolg, Peter

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Driberg, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Pendry, Tom

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Pentland, Norman

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Sillars, James

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Prescott, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Small, William

  Wallace, George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Watkins, David

  Probert, Arthur

  Spearing, Nigel

  Weitzman, David

  Rankin, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Richard, Ivor

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Whitlock, William

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Roper, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Rose, Paul B.

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Tinn, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tomney, Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Havers, Michael

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Curran, Charles

  Hawkins, Paul

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Astor, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hicks, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dean, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

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

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Batsford, Brian

  Dixon, Piers

  Holland, Philip

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bell, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hordern, Peter

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hornby, Richard

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Benyon, W.

  Eden, Sir John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Biffen, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Hunt, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  James, David

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jessel, Toby

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fidler, Michael

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Braine, Bernard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Jopling, Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Brewis, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kilfedder, James

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Foster, Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fowler, Norman

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Fry, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Buck, Antony

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Knox, David

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

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Lambton, Antony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lane, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gorst, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Channon, Paul

  Gower, Raymond

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gray, Hamish

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Green, Alan

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

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grieve, Percy

  Loveridge, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Grylls, Michael

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  McLaren, Martin

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  McMaster, Stanley

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maddan, Martin

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Madel, David

  Cordle, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marten, Neil

  Critchley, Julian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  694

  695

  Maude, Angus

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Sutcliffe, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Tepsell, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Temple, John M.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Moate, Roger

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Molyneaux, James

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Money, Ernie

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Monro, Hector

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tilney, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  More, Jasper

  Rost, Peter

  Trew, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Royle, Anthony

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morgan-Giles, Russell, Sir Ronald

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  St. John-St-vas, Norman

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mudd, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Murton, Oscar

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Waddington, David

  Nabarro, Sir Geral

  Sharples, Richard

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Heave, Airey

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

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Wall, Patrick

  Normanton, Tom

  Simeons, Charles

  Walters, Dennis

  Nott, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Warren, Kenneth

  Onslow, Cranley

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Osborn, John

  Soref, Harold

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Speed, Keith

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Spence, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stainton Keith

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Percival, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Worsley, Marcus

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  It being after 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 Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question put, That the Clause Stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 253.

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES

  [12.4 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Curran, Charles

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bryan, Paul

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

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

  Astor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Dean, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Burden, F. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dixon, Piers

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Batsford, Brian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Drayson, G. B.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  Channon, Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Eden, Sir John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Benyon, W.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

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

  Biffen, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Emery, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Farr, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Fell, Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fidler, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Coombs, Derek

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cordle, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Braine, Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fortescue, Tim

  Bray, Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Foster, Sir John

  Brewis, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Fowler, Norman

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Crouch, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Crowder, F. P.

  Fry, Peter

  Gardner, Edward

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

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Loveridge, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rost, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLaren, Martin

  Royle, Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  McMaster, Stanley

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gower, Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForeSt)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gray, Hamish

  Madel, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Green, Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Grieve, Percy

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marten, Neil

  Simeons, Charles

  Grylls, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maude, Angus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Soref, Harold

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Keith

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Spence, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sproat, Iain

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stainton, Keith

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Molyneaux, James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Havers, Michael

  Money, Ernie

  Stokes, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monro, Hector

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

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

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Holland, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Tebbit, Norman

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Temple, John M.

  Hordern, Peter

  Heave, Airey

  Thatcher Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Nott, John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  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)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Waddington, David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wall, Patrick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walters, Dennis

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pounder, Rafton

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kilfedder, James

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kimball, Marcus

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hn. William

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Raison, Timothy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Kirk, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wilkinson, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Redmond, Robert

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Lambton, Antony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Jasper More

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Albu, Austen

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bradley, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Barnes, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Joel

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cant, R. B.

  Cronin, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  698

  699

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

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

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Prescott, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Judd, Frank

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kelley, Richard

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kinnock, Neil

  Richard, Ivor

  Dell, Rt. Rn. Edmund

  Lambie, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Doig, Peter

  Latham, Arthur

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lawson, George

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leonard, Dick

  Roper, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rose, Paul B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sillars, James

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Evans, Fred

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Fernyhough, E.

  McBride, Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McElhone, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stallard, A. W.

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Foot, Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Forrester, John

  McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Swain, Thomas

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Taverne, Dick

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mendelson, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wallace, George

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaw)

  Watkins, David

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hilton, W. S.

  Moyle, Roland King

  Horam, John

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Murray, Ronald King

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oram, Bert

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  John, Brynmor

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. John Golding

  Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

  UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH PRINCIPLES STATED IN SECTION 61.
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 247.

  Division No. 148.]

  AYES

  [12.15 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Lambton, Antony

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Farr, John

  Lane, David

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Astor, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Loveridge, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacArthur, Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Fortescue, Tim

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Foster, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Bell, Ronald

  Fowler, Norman

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Benyon, W.

  Gardner, Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Madel, David

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marten, Neil

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mather, Carol

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Angus

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bray, Ronald

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grylls, Michael

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

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gurden, Harold

  Moate, Roger

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Molyneaux, James

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Money, Ernie

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Buck, Antony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Menro, Hector

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Campbell, RtHn.G.(Moray & Nairn)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Havers, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Channon, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Heave, Airey

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hicks, Robert

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Normanton, Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nott, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Clegg, Walter

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Coombs, Derek

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Cordle, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Costain, A. P.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Crouch, David

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Crowder, F. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Curran, Charles

  James, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Jopling, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Dean, Paul

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Redmond, Robert

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Eden, Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Rost, Peter

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hoyle, Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Waddington, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Sutcliffe, John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walters, Dennis

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Simeons, Charles

  Tebbit, Norman

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Temple, John M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soref, Harold

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

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Speed, Keith

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Spence, John

  Tilney, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Sproat, Iain

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stainton, Keith

  Trew, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kelley, Richard

  Albu, Austen

  Dunn, James A.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lambie, David

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Latham, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ellis, Tom

  Leonard, Dick

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Barnes, Michael

  Evans, Fred

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Barnett, Joel

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Foot, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Forrester, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McBride, Neil

  Bradley Tom

  Freeson, Reginald

  McCartney, High

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McElhone, Frank

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (ShoneditCh & F'bury)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Buchan, Norman

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mackie, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Callaghan, Rt Hn. James

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Marquand, David

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Coleman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Horam, John

  Mendelson, John

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Millian, Bruce

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Molloy, William

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, Denzi1 (Llanelly)

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ogden, Eric

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

  Oram, Bert

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Judd, Frank

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  704

  705

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Pendry, Tom

  Sillars, James

  Varley, Eric G.

  Pentland, Norman

  Silverman, Julius

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Perry, Ernest G.

  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, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watkins, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Weitzman, David

  Probert, Arthur

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Richard, Ivor

  Strang, Gavin

  Whitlock, William

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Taverne, Dick

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Roper, John

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tinn, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Tomney, Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. John Golding.

  Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Clause 63

  ORGANISATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNIONS
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 245.

  Division No. 149.]

  AYES

  [12.25 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushelliffe)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Clegg, Walter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Goodhart, Philip

  Astor, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Coombs, Derek

  Gorst, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cooper, A. E.

  Cower, Raymond

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marytebone)

  Cordle, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gray, Hamish

  Batsford, Brian

  Costain, A. P.

  Green, Alan

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Critchley, Julian

  Grieve, Percy

  Bell, Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Grylls, Michael

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Curran, Charles

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Benyon, W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gurden, Harold

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Biffen, John

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dean, Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Blaker, Peter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Body, Richard

  Dixon, Piers

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Drayson, G. B.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bowden, Andrew

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brain, Bernard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Havers, Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brewis, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Brinton, Sir Talton

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Emery, Peter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Bryan, Paul

  Farr, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Holland, Philip

  Buck, Antony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fidler, Michael

  Hordern, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hornby, Richard

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hunt, John

  Channon, Paul

  Foster, Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fowler, Norman

  Iremonge T. L.

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fox, Marcus

  James, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fry, Peter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gardner, Edward

  Jessel, Toby

  Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Soref, Harold

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Murton, Oscar

  Speed, Keith

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Spence, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Neave, Airey

  Sproat, Iain

  Kilfedder, James

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Kimball, Marcus

  Normanton, Tom

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Nott, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Kirk, Peter

  Osborn, John

  Stokes, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Knox, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Lambton, Antony

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lane, David

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

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

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Percival, Ian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tebbit, Norman

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Temple, John M.

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

  Pounder, Rafton

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Loveridge, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S

  McLaren, Martin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Tilney, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Raison, Timothy

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Ramsden, Fit. Hn, James

  Trew, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Redmond, Robert

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Maddan, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Madel, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Waddington, David

  Marten, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mather, Carol

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Maude, Angus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wall, Patrick

  Mawby, Ray

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rost, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Miscampbell, Normany

  Royle, Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wilkinson, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Scott, Nicholas

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Molyneaux, James

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Money, Ernie

  Sharples, Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hn. George

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  More, Jasper

  Simeons, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Driberg, Tom

  Albu, Austen

  Castle, Rt. Fin. Barbara

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Eddie, Alex

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Donald

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ellis, Tom

  Baggier, Gordon A. T.

  Conlan, Bernard

  English, Michael

  Barnes, Michael

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Evans, Fred

  Barnett, Joel

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cronin, John

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Foley, Maurice

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Foot, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Forrester, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Deakins, Eric

  Garrett, W. E.

  Buchan, Norman

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Ginsburg, David

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Golding, John

  Callaghan, Rt. Ha. James

  Dempsey, James

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Doig, Peter

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Cant, R. B.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtslde)

  Carter, Ray (Birtmingh'm, Northfield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  708

  709

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackie, John

  Roper, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Harper, Joseph

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marquand, David

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Horam, John

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sillars, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Silverman, Julius

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Small, William

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hunter, Adam

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Janner, Greville

  Molloy, William

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Swain, Thomas

  John, Brynmor

  Moyle, Roland

  Taverne, Dick

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

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

  Murray, Ronald King

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tomney, Frank

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oram, Bert

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Tuck, Raphael

  Judd, Frank

  Orme, Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Oswald, Thomas

  Varley, Eric G.

  Kelley, Richard

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Kinnock, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Lambie, David

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lamond, James

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wallace, George

  Latham, Arthur

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Watkins, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pendry, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Leonard, Dick

  Pentland, Norman

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Perry, Ernest G.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Prescott, John

  Whitlock, William

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lipton, Marcus

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Loughlin, Charle

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. T. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rees, MErlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Richard, Ivor

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McBride, Neil

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McElhone, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  McGuire, Michael

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

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 64

  APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNION
  Question Put, That the Clause Stand Part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 246.

  Division No. 150.]

  AYES

  [12.35 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Blaker, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Body, Richard

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

  Astor, John

  Boscawen, Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Braine, Bernard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bray, Ronald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Batsford, Brian

  Brewis, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bell, Ronald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Benyon, W.

  Bryan, Paul

  Cooke, Robert

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

  Coombs, Derek

  Biffen, John

  Buck, Antony

  Cooper, A. E.

  Cordle, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cormack, Patrick

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Costain, A. P.

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Critchley, Julian

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Redmond, Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Curran, Charles

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dean, Paul

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kirk, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Royle, Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Knox, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Emery, Peter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

  Fell, Anthony

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

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Loveridge, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fidler, Michael

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Soref, Harold

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McMaster, Stanley

  Spence, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Foster, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fowler, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fry, Peter

  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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Green, Alan

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

  Temple, John M.

  Grieve, Percy

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Grylls, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Money, Ernie

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tilney, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monro, Hector

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Trew, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  More, Jasper

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mudd, David

  Waddington, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Havers, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Wall, Patrick

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Hawkins, Paul

  Normanton, Tom

  Walters, Dennis

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Holland, Philip

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hornby, Richard

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Younger, Hn. George

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pounder, Rafton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Hunt, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  712

  713

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P, C.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Albu, Austen

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Ogden, Eric

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Oram, Bert

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Orme, Stanley

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hardy, Peter

  Oswald, Thomas

  Barnes, Michael

  Harper, Joseph

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Barnett, Joel

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Pendry, Tom

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Booth, Albert

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Prescott, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Roes, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Janner, Greville

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Calaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Richard, Ivor

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cant, R. B.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  John, Brynmor

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Roper, John

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Judd, Frank

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Sillars, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  Cronin, John

  Lambie, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lamond, James

  Small, William

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

  Latham, Arthur

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leonard, Dick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Strang, Gavin

  Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Deakins, Eric

  Loughlin, Charles

  Swain, Thomas

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Taverne, Dick

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, Neil

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

  Dormand, J. D

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tinn, James

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Tomney Frank

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McGuire, Michael

  Torne, Tom

  Driberg, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Tuck, Raphael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mackie, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dunn, James A

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Varley, Eric C.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Eadie, Alex

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wallace, George

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Watkins David

  English, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Evans, Fred

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mason, Rt.Hn. Roy

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mendelson, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Foot, Michael

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Ford, Ben

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Forrester, John

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Ginsburg, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Golding, John

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 65 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

  EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF RULES BY REGISTRAR
  Question Put, That the Clause Stand Part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 249.

  Division No. 151.]

  AYES

  [12.48 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Eden, Sir John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kilfedder, James

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Astor, John

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bakes, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Farr, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Batsford, Brian

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fidler, Michael

  Knox, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lambton, Antony

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lane, David

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Benny, Hn. Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Biffen, John

  Foster, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fowler, Norman

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fry, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Bosom, Sir Clive

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Bray, Ronald

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Brewis, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gray, Hamish

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Grieve, Percy

  Mather, Carol

  Bryan, Paul

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maude, Angus

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Buck, Antony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gurden, Harold

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miscamphell, Norman

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

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

  Carr,Rt.Hn.Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Channon, Paul

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Moate, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Money, Ernie

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  More, Jasper

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Clegg Walter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cooke, Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mudd, David

  Coombs, Derek

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Neave, Airey

  Cordle, John

  Holland, Philip

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Normanton, Tom

  Costain, A. P.

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Hornby, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Crouch, David

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Osborn, John

  Curran, Charles

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack

  Hutchinson, Michael Clark

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Dean, Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Dixon, Piers

  Jessel, Toby

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jopling, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Trew, Peter

  Pym, Rt. Fin. Francis

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Soref, Harold

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  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)

  Wall, Patrick

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stokes, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rost, Peter

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

  Wilkinson, John

  Royce, Anthony

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Worsley, Marcus

  Scott, Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Younger, Rt. George

  Sharples, Richard

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Simeons, Charles

  Tilney, John

  Mr. Victor Goodhew

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Albu, Austen

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Driberg, Tom

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ashton, Joe

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  John, Brynmor

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunnett, Jack

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

  Barnes, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  English, Michael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Evans, Fred

  Judd, Frank

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Booth, Albert

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lambie, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lamond, James

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Foot, Michael

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ford, Ben

  Leonard, Dick

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Ginsburg, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (EccleS)

  Golding, John

  Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McBride, Neil

  Cohen, Stanley

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Concannon, J. D.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McElhone, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McGuire, Michael

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackie, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Cronin, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Maclennan, Robert

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davidson, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Marquand, David

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Meacher, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mendelson, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dempsey, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Millan, Bruce

  Doig, Peter

  Janner, Greville

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  718

  719

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Molloy, William

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Taverne, Dick

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Richard, Ivor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tomney, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Torney, Tom

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Murray, Ronald King

  Roper, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ogden, Eric

  Rose, Paul B.

  Varley, Eric G.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

  Oram, Bert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Wallace, George

  Orme, Stanley

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Watkins, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Sillars, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitlock, William

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Small, William

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Prescott, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Probert, Arthur

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr. Donald Coleman

  Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

  APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT AS TO APPROVAL OF RULES
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 242.

  Division No. 152.]

  AYES

  [1.1 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Foster, Sir John

  Astor, John

  Clark, Wrlliam (Surrey, E.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fox, Marcus

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

  Fry, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cooke, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Batsford, Brian

  Coombs, Derek

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cordle, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Costain, A. P.

  Gorst, John

  Benyon, W.

  Critchley, Julian

  Gower, Raymond

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Biffen, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gray, Hamish

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Curran, Charles

  Green, Alan

  Blaker, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grieve, Percy

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Body, Richard

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Boscawen, Robert

  Dean, Paul

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gurden, Harold

  Bowden, Andrew

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Braise, Bernard

  Dixon, Piers

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bray, Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brewis John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Eden, Sir John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bryan, Paul

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hastings, Stephen

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

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

  Havers, Michael

  Buck, Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Eyre, Reginald

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Burden, F. A.

  Farr, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fell, Anthony

  Higgins, Terence L.

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

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hiley, Joseph

  Carlisle, Clark

  Fidler, Michael

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

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Channon, Paul

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Holland, Philip

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Molyneaux, James

  Simeons, Charles

  Hordern, Peter

  Money, Ernie

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hornby, Richard

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Clame Patricia

  Monro, Hector

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

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Soref, Harold

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  More, Jasper

  Speed, Keith

  Hunt, John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Spence, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Sproat, Iain

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stainton, Keith

  James, David

  Mudd, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Jessel, Toby

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Neave, Airey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Jopling, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stokes, John

  Joseph, Fit. Hn. Sir Keith

  Normanton, Tom

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nott, John

  Sutcliffe, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Osborn, John

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kirk, Peter

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Percival, Ian

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Knox, David

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Lambton, Antony

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Lane, David

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tilney, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Trew, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.

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

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Loveridge, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Waddington, David

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Redmond, Robert

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  McLaren, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wall, Patrick

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walters, Dennis

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Maddan, Martin

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mattel, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Marten, Neil

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mather, Carol

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Maude, Angus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Rost, Peter

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Royle, Anthony

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Hn. George

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Sharples, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Moaty, Roger

  Shelton, Wiltam (Clapham)

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Driberg, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dunn, James A.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Barnes, Michael

  Conlan, Bernard

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnett, Joel

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ellis, Tom

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cronin, John

  English, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Evans, Fred

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Forrester, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Deakins, Eric

  Freeson, Reginald

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Cant, R. B.

  Dempsey, James

  Ginsburg, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Doig, Peter

  Golding, John

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  722

  723

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roper, John

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackie, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hardy, Peter

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marquand, David

  Sillars, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Silverman, Julius

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Horam, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Small, William

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mendelson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Huckfieid, Leslie

  Mikardo, Ian

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Milian, Bruce

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molloy, William

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hunter, Adam

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Strang, Gavin

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Swain, Thomas

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

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Taverne, Dick

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  John, Brynmor

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tinn, James

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Oram, Bert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Stanley

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Judd, Frank

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wallace, George

  Lambie, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Watkins, David

  Lamond, James

  Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wellbeloved, James

  Latham, Arthur

  Pendry, Tom

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pentland, Norman

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Leonard, Dick

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Whitlock, William

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Prescott, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McBride, Neil

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  McCartney, Hugh

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  McElhone, Frank

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

  Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

  APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION ON OTHER GROUNDS.
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 242.

  Division No. 153.]

  AYES

  [1.13 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Benyon, W.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Biffen, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Buck, Antony

  Astor, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Body, Richard

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Baker, Kenneth (St.Marylebone)

  Boscawen, Robert

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

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Carlisle, Mark

  Bowden, Andrew

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Braine, Bernard

  Channon, Paul

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bray, Ronald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bell, Ronald

  Brewis, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Churchill, W. S.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Clegg, Walter

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunt, John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Coombs, Derek

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cooper, A. E.

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Cordle, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Critchiey, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Curran, Charles

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  d'Avigefor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  d'AvIgetor-Coldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dean, Paul

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Royle, Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kirk, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dixon, Piers

  Kitson, Timothy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Scott, Nicholas

  Drayson, G. B.

  Knox, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lambton, Antony

  Sharples, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lane, David

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

  Eden, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Simeons, Charles

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Le Marchant, Spncer

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Emery, Peter

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

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Soref, Harold

  Farr, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Spence, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McLaren, Martin

  Sproat, Iain

  Fidler, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Madden, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fookos, Miss Janet

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  Foster, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fowler, Norman

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Marten, Neil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maude, Angus

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Temple, John M.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gorst, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gower, Raymond

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

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Tilney, John

  Green, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Grieve, Percy

  Money, Ernie

  Trew, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Garden, Harold

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Waddington, David

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mudd, David

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  Wail, Patrick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Walters, Dennis

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Neave, Airey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitlaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Osborn, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Holland, Philip

  Percival, Ian

  Hordern, Peter

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hornby, Richard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pounder, Rafton

  Mr. Tim Fortescue

  726

  727

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Moyle, Roland

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Ogden, Eric

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Oram, Bert

  Barnes, Michael

  Hardy, Peter

  Orbach, Maurice

  Barnett, Joel

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orme, Stanley

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Booth, Albert

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pentland, Norman

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Prescott, John

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Probert, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Janner, Greville

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cant, R. B.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Richard, Ivor

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

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

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roper, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Ross, Pt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Judd, Frank

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cronin, John

  Lambie, David

  Sillars, James

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lamond, James

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Latham, Arthur

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Small, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leonard, Dick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Loughlin, Charles

  Strang, Gavin

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Swain, Thomas

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, Neil

  Taverne, Dick

  Dormand, J. D.

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McGuire, Michael

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Tinn, James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mackie, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Torney, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Eadie, Alex

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Wallace, George

  English, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Watkins, David

  Evans, Fred

  Marquand, David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fernyhough, E.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Meacher, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Foley, Maurice

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Foot, Michael

  Mendelson, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Ford, Ben

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Colding, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

  ENTRY OF ORGANISATIONS IN PROVISIONAL REGISTER
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

  The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 247.

  Division No. 154].

  AYES

  [1.24 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kilfedder, James

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Emery, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Astor, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Farr, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fell, Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fidler, Michael

  Knox, David

  Batsford, Brian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lambton, Antony

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lane, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Benyon, W.

  Foster, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fowler, Norman

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

  Biffen, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fry, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Blaker, Peter

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Body Richard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Godhew, Victor

  Maddan, Martin

  Braine, Bernard

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Bray Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Maginnis, John E.

  Brewis, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gray, Hamish

  Marten, Neil

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maude, Angus

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Bryan, Paul

  Grylis, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Buck, Antony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Channon, Paul

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Molyneaux, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, Ernie

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Clegg, Walter

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mudd, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  Coombs, Derek

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

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Neave, Airey

  Cordle, John

  Holland, Philip

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Normanton, Tom

  Costain, A. P.

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Hornby, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Crouch, David

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Osborn, John

  Curran, Charles

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Dean Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn, W. F.

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn John

  Dixon, Piers

  Jessel, Toby

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jopling, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  du Cann, Rt Hn. Edward

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Eden, Sir John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  730

  731

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Raison, Timothy

  Soref, Harold

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Spence, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Redmond, Robert

  Sproat, Iain

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stainton, Keith

  Waddington, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Rost, Peter

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Royle, Anthony

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wilkinson, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Sharpies, Richard

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  younger, Hn. George

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

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

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Simeons, Charles

  Tilney, John

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Trew, Peter

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  John, Brynmor

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Driberg, Tom

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Barnett, Joel

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Judd, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ellis, Tom

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bishop, E. S.

  English, Michael

  Kelley, Richard

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Evans, Fred

  Kinnock, Neil

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lambie, David

  Booth, Albert

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

  Lamond, James

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Latham, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Foot, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Brown Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ford, Ben

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lipton, Marcus

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Carter -Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Golding, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McBride, Neil

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Cohen, Stanley

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McGuirre, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackie, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, William (fife, W.)

  Macintosh, John P.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Cronin, John

  Hattersley, Roy

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mendelson, Jol

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Millan, Bruce

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hunter, Adam

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Janner, Greville

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Dempsey, James

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Doig, Peter

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  732

  733

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

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

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tinn, James

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Milley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Torney, Tom

  Murray, Ronald King

  Roper, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ogden, Eric

  Rose, Paul B.

  Urwin, T. W.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Varley, Eric G.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Oram, Bert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Orme, Stanley

  Silkin, nt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wallace, George

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Watkins, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Sillars, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Silverman, Julius

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Small, William

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Whitlock, William

  Pentland, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Prescott, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Probert, Arthur

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Richard, Ivor

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

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clauses 75 and 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 77

  APPLICATION TO REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATE
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

  The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 243.

  Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

  ACTION BY REGISTRAR ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 77
  Division No. 156]

  AYES

  [1.45 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bell, Ronald

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Astor, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Benyon, W.

  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 245.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gurden, Harold

  Murton, Oscar

  Biffen, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Noble, Rt. Hn, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Normanton, Tom

  Body, Richard

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nott, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bowden, Andrew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Osborn, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Bray, Ronald

  Havers, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brewis, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Buck, Antony

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornby, Richard

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Ouennell, Miss J. M.

  Channon, Paul

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Raison, Timothy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hunt, John

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  James, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cooke, Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Coombs, Derek

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jopling, Michael

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Cordle, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Royle, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  St.John-Stevas, Norman

  Curran, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Datkeith, Earl of

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  d'Avigclor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sharples, Richard

  d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, MaJ.-Gen. Jack

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  Dean, Paul

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lambton, Antony

  Simeons, Charles

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dixon, Piers

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Soref, Harold

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Speed, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Spence, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Emery, Peter

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stokes, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Maddan, Martin

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Madel, David

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Magginnis, John E.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Marten, Neil

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Foster, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fowler, Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Temple, John M.

  Fox, Marcus

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Fry, Peter

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

  Tilney, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Trew, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Molyneaux, James

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gorst, John

  Money, Ernie

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Gower, Raymond

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Waddington, David

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wall, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walters, Dennis

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  740

  741

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Milian, Bruce

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ginsburg, David

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Barnes, Michael

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Barnett, Joel

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Rrightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Booth, Albert

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bradley, Tom

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Maliey, Brian

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Buchan, Norman

  Horam, John

  Orme, Stanley

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Peart, Rt Hn. Fred

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Probert, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Cunningham G. (Islington S. W.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A (Whitehaven)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  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, Neil

  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, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leonard, Dick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Sillars, James

  Dolg, Peter

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silverman, Julius

  Dormant, 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, Leslie

  Dunn, James

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford. E.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Eadie, 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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Ellis, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Taverne, Dick

  Evans, Fred

  Mackie, John

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tomney, Frank

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Torney, Tom

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Foot, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Varley, Eric G.

  742

  743

  Wainwright, Edwin

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Wallace, George

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Watkins, David

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Wells, Wiliiam (Walsall, N.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

  INVESTIGATION INITIATED BY REGISTRAR
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

  The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 245.

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES

  [1.57 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Dean, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hordern, Peter

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hornby, Richard

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dixon, Piers

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Astor, John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Awdry, Daniel

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dykes, U.

  Hunt, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Eden, Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Batsford, Brian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  James, David

  Bell, Ronald

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Emery, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

  Benyon, W.

  Farr, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fell, Anthony

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Biffen, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kaherry, Sir Donald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Blaker, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kilfedder, James

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Foster, Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Braine, Bernard

  Fowler, Norman

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bray, Ronald

  Fox, Marcus

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Brewis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Knox, David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gardner, Edward

  Lambton, Antony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lane, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhart, Philip

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Buck, Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Burden, F. A.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Loveridge, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gray, Hamish

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Green, Alan

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grieve, Percy

  McLaren, Martin

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Channon, Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Selwyn

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Maddan, Martin

  Chichester-Clarke, R.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Madel, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marten, Neil

  Clegg, Walter

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mather, Carol

  Cockeram, Eric

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maude, Angus

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mawby, Ray

  Coombs, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Havers, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Critchley, Julian

  Heseltine, Michael

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

  Crouch, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Curran, Charles

  Hiley, Joseph

  Molyneaux, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Money, Ernie

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

  Holland, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  744

  745

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  More, Jasper

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tebbit, Norman

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Mudd, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

  Murton, Oscar

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rost, Peter

  Tilney, John

  Neave, Airey

  Royle, Anthony

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Trew, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  St. John-Stevgs, Norman

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Nott, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Sharples, Richard

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Osborn, John

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

  Waddington, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walker, David (Clitheroe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Simeons, Charles

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wall, Patrick

  Paisley, Mr Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Percival, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Spence, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Sproat, Iain

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stainton, Keith

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Wilkinson, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Stokes, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Redmond, Robert

  Tapsell, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Deakins, Eric

  Hattersley, Roy

  Ashton, Joe

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hilton, W. S.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dempsey, James

  Horam, John

  Barnes, Michael

  Doig, Peter

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Barnett, Joel

  Dormand, J. D.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hunter, Adam

  Booth, Albert

  Eadie, Alex

  Janner, Greville

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bradley, Tom

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  English, Michael

  John, Brynmor

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, Fred

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Foley, Maurice

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Foot, Michael

  Judd, Frank

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ford, Ben

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Forrester, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cohen, Stanley

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lambie, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lamond, James

  Concannon, J. D.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Latham, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ginsburg, David

  Leonard, Dick

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Cronin, John

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brighside)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hardy, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  746

  747

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  McBride, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  McElhone, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Strang, Gavin

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Pendry, Tom

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mackie, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Swain, Thomas

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Perry, Ernest G.

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Prescott, John

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

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tinn, James

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Torney, Tom

  Marquand, David

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Varley, Eric G.

  Meacher, Michael

  Richard, Ivor

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Mendelson, John

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wallace, George

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Watkins, David

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Roper, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Molloy, William

  Rose, Paul B.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Silkin, Fit. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Oram, Bert

  Small, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Orme, Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Kenneth Marks

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 80 to 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [25th January].
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]

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

  SWANSEA DOCKS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  2.8 a.m.
  Mr. Neil McBride: I was surprised, on Monday, 1st February, to hear the Secretary of State for Wales say that no inquiries had been made of him about the future potential of the South Wales ports, with special reference to Swansea.
  I believe that the ports are one of the principal assets of the nation and should be listed in value to the nation. I believe that the reversal of this procedure, lack of inquiry, indicates a lack of liaison between Ministers of the Crown. Where Swansea and Wales are concerned, we cannot disregard the sea communications position in the Bristol Channel.
  The future potential of the Port of Swansea is a matter of great importance to South Wales and, indeed, to the United Kingdom. The continued and increasing trade through the port must be maintained, and it is necessary to maintain a prosperous port in Swansea and a prosperous industrial hinterland behind the port, because each is interdependent on the other.
  When we look for the ideal spot where sea traffic ends and overland traffic begins, we find that Swansea's position in economic, physical and commercial terms places it unquestionably in the top ten of the United Kingdom ports. Of all ports on a convergent point between sea and inland transport, none is better placed than the Port of Swansea.
  The present success story of Swansea shows the willingness of all concerned to work with boldness and foresight for a policy adopted to secure a great future for the Port of Swansea. It is natural, therefore, to look for the Government's blessing and to hope that this will be forthcoming. Industrial relations in the port are good, and I say regretfully and sincerely that the only visible worsening agent to that is the Bill which we have been discussing tonight.
  So we come to the bread-and-butter part of our national life and the part
  750
  that Swansea plays now and the port's potential, and if I commence with the present position and project the future potential I would say that 1970 was a record year for the port. The total traffic through the port exceeded eight million tons. If 1952 is taken as capacity, with traffic through the port at 11·6 million tons, in 1970, with more than eight million tons, the operation could be said to be 50 per cent. below capacity.
  Yet, without extending the dock estate, there are potentially 12 new berths within the port, and this could provide employment for about 450 men. Vessels of up to 18,000 tons could use these facilities at all times, and with favourable tides vessels of 30,000 tons could use them. Within the dock boundaries there are about 70 acres of land available for marshalling cargo, and a further 35 acres will be available soon, and here I congratulate the British Transport Docks Board on its excellent management of the Port of Swansea.
  I now come to two concepts where I think the potential of the Port of Swansea is something that should be assisted now to provide for the future. The first concept is that of a port of Europe, the so-called Europort. For several years there has been heavy insistence on the development of an east coast port, or ports, as so-called Euroports. It seems to me advisable that, having regard to all the circumstances which I shall mention later, one of these could, with profit to the country, be created in Swansea. If thought is given to the choice of Swansea, it will be seen from a lot of what I shall say latterly that the choice will be well made. Money would require to be spent, but in my view this would be a sound investment for the United Kingdom, Wales and Swansea, and I shall mention an example of how this induces speedy and heavy private capital investment in an area such as I shall describe.
  The establishment of Swansea as a Europort could be done in two or possibly three stages. In stage one, there would be a modernisation programme and usage of the present facilities relating to sea, land and air transport. In stage two, there would be the building of a new dock on a site between the Neath River and the existing dock, the rebuilding of

  751
  Swansea airport, connecting up motorways and the rebuilding of the railway system. In stage three, there would be the building of a breakwater across Swan-sea Bay where large ships could be berthed in an artificial harbour.
  Stage one would be an interim measure to accommodate present-day needs and to provide for container and roll-on-roll-off ships. It is in stage two that the speculative planning must be developed. It would be necessary to build a new dock between the Queens Dock and the Neath River for the new ships. Ships of the twenty-first century would require a dock such as this. The length of this dock would be 1,500 feet and the width would be 200 feet. The lock would have sliding casson gates and it would be possible for this dock to take the largest ships. The approach channel of 1,500 feet width and two miles in length would require to be dredged and this channel would be 10 fathoms deep at low water spring tides to enable ships drawing 55 feet to arrive and sail off for a full 24 hours a day.
  The airport would require enlargement to transport away the goods and passengers to the rest of Britain and Europe, and air travel would be an ancillary service. The roadways in stage two would have to be those presently planned, and the railways, with freightliner terminals, would be speeding up transportation overland.
  Next we have to consider the possibility of a Channel Tunnel being constructed. A hovertrain is another possibility. The journey from Swansea to the rest of Europe could become an overnight trip. All these things are realisable. It is amazing how the seeming fantasy of yesterday becomes the reality of today. In relation to the airport, this development would be a rewarding outcome for the great part that the City Council has played in the development up to date. The whole of stage two would require expert planning on a long-term basis to serve our country and the rest of Europe.
  Stage three would be a progress development where big transports from overseas could lie moored in open water. These would be liquid carrier and bulk carrier ships, parent/barge ships, gas ships and similar large vessels.
  752
  If we look at the latitudinal and longitudinal position of Swansea, the city is nearer the Americas than is any other major West European port and certainly any British port. It is on a direct route to the U.S.A. and has deep-water entry from any part of the world. It is interesting to note that Swansea is nearer to New York, Cape Town and Suez than is London, Liverpool or Southampton. When one considers the congestion of Liverpool and London and the fact that recently in Swansea we have been taking overspill dock traffic from there, one sees that the point has stronger emphasis. From the marine angle, a convergent point of sea traffic, Swansea, means that it is the nearest point for continental Europe and for which ships can make.
  In relation to inland transport, where the sea meets the land, the excellence of the geographical position of the port is again revealed. The city is approached by two main arterial road networks from the Midlands, with similar arterial and motorway roads from east and west which give access to the rest of Britain.
  There are those in the House who know that rail communications lead everywhere from Swansea, with fast city-to-city services to London. If we assume that Birmingham is the centre of industrial Britain. Swansea is nearer the centre, give or take a mile, than many other towns. The distance from Swansea to Birmingham is 127 miles. The distance from London to Birmingham is 110 miles; from Southampton to Birmingham it is 128 miles; and from Liverpool to Birmingham it is 90 miles. Swansea is more accessible and nearer in steaming distance than other ports in the Bristol Channel. Ships can speed at 15 knots to Swansea. Bristol is 66 miles further on. Four hours and 24 minutes steaming time could gain another tide either way. Ship expenses are a matter for consideration.
  There is a question of the inclusion or exclusion of Swansea as a maritime industrial development area. But in any case, exclusion is purely academic. In 1969 the then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs referred to the preservation of areas around ports suitable for inclusion in what was termed M.I.D.A.S. The prerequisite here was 5,000 acres of mostly flat land, a favourable hinterland, and a port with deep water access.

  753
  Swansea Bay has all these minimum criteria and presents a more favourable case as a maritime industrial development area than do ports in the upper Bristol Channel—and certainly much more favourable than Portbury or other developments in that area. With 6,000 acres between Kidwelly Flats and Llanelli, it follows that Swansea and the Swansea Bay area form a good port site suitable for modern facilities. We live in an age of large bulk carriers, and Swansea could he developed with these in mind.
  The advantage in South-West Wales of relatively low-cost land is another factor. Industrial land in or near to large towns costs from £2,500 to £5,000 per acre freeehold. I contrast that with industrial land in the Midlands, which costs £10,000 per acre and upwards, and, as we know, the price in London is even higher—even more astronomic.
  Development costs money, but spending must be weighed against the provision of national assets. I think that both the concepts to which I have referred, the Europort and M.I.D.A.S., are developments in the area which would be assets for the nation. I ask the Minister to consider the evidence. The national need must be provided for and, if it were assisted by the Government, Swansea could provide the need for a modern port complex. Today, the port is part of the nationalised Port Authority.
  I come to the economics of the affair. It has been shown in Rotterdam and Antwerp that the creation of new port facilities is a prerequisite for large-scale development. The rapid industrial growth of these Continental ports followed decisions by the respective port authorities in 1947 and 1954 to expand their port facilities. So rapid is the effect of such decisions today that the mere announcement that Rotterdam intends to build a new oil channel costing 150 million guilders has resulted, within six months, in private industrial development decisions involving the total investment of 1,200 million guilders.
  I hope that the Government will consider our part of the country when they come to the choice of site for a new port complex. Swansea has vision and is reaching out for the future. But the city and the port face the future with reality, and I have tried to back them in their
  754
  arguments for the Europort and M.I.D.A.S.
  The potential of the port is there. All the arguments are based on reality. With Government interest and support and inclusion in the list of the nation's top 10 ports, Swansea could take her place at the centre of one of the trading crossroads of the world.
  2.23 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has spoken powerfully on behalf of the great port which he helps to represent, and has outlined a most ambitious vision of its possible future. I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss one section of the ports industry which is so important to our country and to South Wales in particular, and I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office.
  The port of Swansea is one of the group of South Wales ports owned and run successfully by the British Transport Docks Board. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a success story. I believe, too, that it has a bright future, but it is a future which, in my judgment, is founded not so much on the uncosted visions that the lion. Gentleman has outlined as on the concrete achievement of the port's management, its dock workers, and the many private firms which are investing in its future development.
  I do not deny that Swansea has important advantages, but the fact that it is closer, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, to New York, Cape Town and Suez can hardly be counted among those advantages. A few score miles one way or the other make comparatively little difference when one is considering voyages of many thousands or tens of thousands of miles. Therefore, to claim that Swansea has a competitive advantage over Liverpool or London in shipping freight to North America or east of Suez makes no particular commercial sense, since it is virtually the same as claiming that Chelsea and Kensington are nearer to Cardiff than is Westminster. It is a marginal point.
  What matters more than distance is the comparative speed and efficiency and the comparative costs of loading and unloading ships between one port and another. I would guess that a 1 per cent. cost

  755
  advantage in, for example, the speed of turning ships around would more than make up for many scores of miles of so-called distance advantage enjoyed by one port over another.
  But I do not want to dampen the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, although I noticed that he carefully refrained from putting any costs to his ambitious schemes. My preference is for the sound and sensible policies of my right hon. Friends the Minister for Transport Industries and the Secretary of State for Wales, which are admirably designed to provide Swansea with what it most needs—confidence and competitiveness. The confidence is already apparent and it is based not on dreams but on facts.
  Currently, Swansea is handling some eight million tons of cargo per year, including over five million tons of petroleum products, most of which are shipped from the B.P. refinery, and over one million tons of anthracite coke.
  Mr. McBride: I agree that the confidence and the ability are there, but one plans by standing back and seeing that something is needed for the future. That would need to be costed, but if we are to create a new society that would be one of the preliminaries.
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to some of the future plans in a moment. The financial results at Swansea are also better than in most British ports. Its net surpluses have risen over the years to some £72,000 in 1969, and the results for 1970 are expected to be much the same, which is a healthy indication in a year which, due to last summer's dock strike and strikes in other industries surrounding the docks, was not generally a good year for the ports as a whole.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, labour relations are good, and this, too, is a favourable portent for Swansea's future. I gladly pay a tribute here to the contributions of the Port Director and his staff and of the trade unions in the port.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman made a broadcast today in which he said, among other things, that there were no plans on the part of the Secretary of State for Swansea's future. I must disabuse him of this idea: he could not be more wrong. Take industry, for example. Around Swansea Bay, a great deal of
  756
  capital investment has already been put in by the British Steel Corporation, B.P. Chemicals, the Ford Motor Company, International Nickel, A.L.C.O.A. and many other great growth companies. In the port itself, more than £4 million has been invested in capital works in recent years, on such projects——
  Mr. McBride Mr. McBride rose——
  Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he must not interrupt.
  Mr. McBride: My mention of there being no plans related to any developments in relation to the concept of which I spoke.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to have that clarification. Then there is the reconstruction of the West Pier, the Eastern breakwater and the new road facilities. The future investment programme of the British Transport Docks Board provides for a further £3·5 million on the extension of wharves, the renewal of cranes and fork-lift trucks and the modernisation of sheds and workshops over the next few years.
  To put figures to it, in 1971 new investment will amount to £609,000. The projected figures for 1972, 1973 and 1974 are £479,000, £786,000 and £920,000. These are my right hon. Friends' projected plans for the growth of this port. Against this background I was surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman in his radio broadcast had spoken of "neglect."
  The future plans for Swansea are most encouraging. It would be wrong for me to describe in any detail the progress of confidential commercial negotiations, but I can say that discussions are proceeding between the British Transport Docks Board and the British Steel Corporation with a view to improving and expanding the tin plate exporting business. Petroleum exports, too, are growing nicely. Future prospects look good. The recently inaugurated roll-on-roll-off service to Cork is another success story. I am hopeful that the operators will be attracted to run new services to France and to Spain. Passenger traffic passing through the port has risen from about 4,000 in 1963 to the present figure of over 150,000 passengers a year.
  Road access is a problem at most of our ports, but, thanks in large measure

  757
  to the efforts of my right hon. Friends, ambitious plans for further improvements are already in hand. By the end of this year the M.4 will be completed as far as Newport. There are firm plans to extend it to beyond Bridgend. The Pyle by-pass is in the programme, so that by about 1976, looking to the future, virtually the whole of the A.48 between Cardiff and Swansea will be dual carriageway. Meanwhile, by the end of this year the current major bottleneck in the centre of Cardiff will have been relieved by the completion of the Eastern Avenue scheme.
  As regards traffic to the Midlands—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Birmingham—the last stage of the new Midlands road linking the M.5 and the Ross Spur with the M.4 at Newport is under construction. This means that by next year there will be a dual-carriage road all the way between Birmingham and Newport, and this will link with the A.48. This road has already been completed as far as the Usk. The dualling of parts of the A.465–the Heads of the Valleys road—is being extended towards Swansea with the construction of the Glyn Neath bypass. A further length of new road is to be provided between Aberdulais and Llandarcy.
  For all these reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will agree that, far from there being neglect or a lack of plans, there is abundant evidence of the Government's care for the future of the port of Swansea and of South Wales generally.
  I am aware that a number of South-Wales Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have expressed misgivings about the effect on the South Wales ports of the Government's decision last November not to withhold approval under Section 9 of the Harbours Act for the Port of Bristol's proposal for a new West Dock. The hon. Member has been frequently on record in criticism of that decision.
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman, because it is relevant to this debate, that this decision was made after the most careful examination of the submissions made by Bristol and of the comments and recommendations made by the National Ports Council, which had considered the area on both sides of the Channel as a
  758
  whole and which is the Government's statutory adviser in matters of this kind. The Government were satisfied that the commercial prospects for the proposed new dock at Bristol offered satisfactory expectations that an adequate return would be achieved on the capital invested. Taking into account the cost of the scheme, which was less than that of its two predecessors, and the prospects of increased trade and revenue for the Port of Bristol, there was no reason whatsoever why Section 9 approval should have been withheld. Indeed, it would have been quite wrong for us to prevent Bristol's investing what, after all, is its own money, at its own risk, in its own port development.
  Here let me emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that in this matter of submitting proposals for port development projects there can be no question of Government direction of trade or direction of ports. If any port can produce a good case which satisfies the detailed scrutiny to which it is subjected by the National Ports Council and by my Department, there is no reason for the Government to withhold their approval on the ground that some sort of similar development might be undertaken at another port. I should tell the hon. Gentleman here that, in fact, no other port, and certainly not Swansea, has submitted any such proposals for consideration.
  Therefore, I see no reason why the construction of the West Dock at Bristol, which is a natural development, bearing in mind the decision to close the Bristol City docks over a period and to concentrate dock development nearer the sea, should adversely affect the prospects of the South Wales ports in general or of Swansea in particular.
  The traffic of Bristol, on the one hand, and of the South Wales ports, on the other, are in many respects complementary. Swansea handles mainly oil, coal, iron and steel, tin plate and non-ferreous ores. Bristol's principal cargoes include grain, feedingstuffs, molasses, fertilisers, wood pulp and chemicals, though it handles considerable quantities of petroleum products as well.
  There is no reason I can see why development on both sides of the Bristol Channel should not continue to progress

  759
  in a similarly complementary fashion. But it would be wrong, both from the point of view of the ports themselves and from the point of view of the national interest, to attempt to put an artificial brake on healthy competition. Indeed, if our ports of the future are to be prosperous, financially stable and forward-looking, the spur of competition is needed as much in the ports industry as in our industry and commerce as a whole.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman was disappointed when the British Transport Docks Board decided not to oppose Bristol's Private Bill which will give powers to construct the West Dock. I found his reaction—I must tell him—somewhat surprising. The British Transport Docks Board is the owner of Swansea Docks. He has himself paid tribute to its effective management of it. The British Transport Docks Board, as the custodian and, I believe, the best judge of Swansea Docks' interests and future, having given the most careful thought to the Bristol Bill, came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to
  760
  oppose it. Its decision was clear, and, in my view, it was right.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman, also, that the British Transport Docks Board was not alone in thinking that it would be wrong for South Wales' interests to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the West Dock scheme or to drum up a scare story that somehow it represents a threat to the trade of the Welsh ports. The hon. Gentleman may have read the letter written by Professor Hallett of the University College of Cardiff last November to the Western Mail. He said:
  "I welcome the decision to allow Bristol Corporation to proceed with the plan, provided it bears the full cost"——
  The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Three o'clock.

AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  V/STOL Feeder Line Services
  V/STOL Feeder Line Services
  Stansted (Training Flights)
  Stansted (Training Flights)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Helicopters and Light Aircraft (Noise)
  Helicopters and Light Aircraft (Noise)
  RB211 Engine
  RB211 Engine
ENVIRONMENT
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Thames Flood Barrier
  House Building (Release of Land)
  House Building (Release of Land)
  Buildings of Historic Interest
  Buildings of Historic Interest
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Hadrian's Wall (Overhead Electricity Cables)
  Hadrian's Wall (Overhead Electricity Cables)
  Voluntary Housing Movement
  Voluntary Housing Movement
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Al2, Marks Tey (Footbridge)
  Al2, Marks Tey (Footbridge)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Clean Air Regulations
  Clean Air Regulations
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Alkali, Etc., Works Order
  Alkali, Etc., Works Order
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  A46, Newark
  A46, Newark
  Rateable Values (London)
  Rateable Values (London)
  Oil and Chemicals (Storage)
  Oil and Chemicals (Storage)
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Homelessness (Definition)
  Homelessness (Definition)
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Home Loans
  Home Loans
  Rent (Control of Increases) Act 1969
  Rent (Control of Increases) Act 1969
  Walsall (Housing)
  Walsall (Housing)
  West Bromwich (Building Land)
  West Bromwich (Building Land)
  Tower Blocks
  Tower Blocks
  Improvements to Property
  Improvements to Property
  District Inspectors (Local Authorities)
  District Inspectors (Local Authorities)
  General Improvement Areas
  General Improvement Areas
  Lorries (Weight)
  Lorries (Weight)
  Leaseholds, Oxford
  Leaseholds, Oxford
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Edinburgh-Newcastle Railway Line (Electrification)
  Edinburgh-Newcastle Railway Line (Electrification)
  Disused Railway Lines
  Disused Railway Lines
  Padiham-Barrowfield Bypass (Speed Limit)
  Padiham-Barrowfield Bypass (Speed Limit)
  Skyways Coach Air Limited
  Skyways Coach Air Limited
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
  Bus Fuel Grants Wales
  Bus Fuel Grants Wales
  Thomas Cook and Sons
  Thomas Cook and Sons
  Lorries (Documentation)
  Lorries (Documentation)
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  Learner Drivers (Stationary Auto-Tutors)
  Learner Drivers (Stationary Auto-Tutors)
SCOTLAND
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Pupils and Students (Cost)
  Pupils and Students (Cost)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Charges)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Charges)
  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Scottish Land Court and Lands Tribunal (Legal Aid)
  Scottish Land Court and Lands Tribunal (Legal Aid)
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Births (Records)
  Births (Records)
EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Food Trade (Women's Wages)
  Retail Food Trade (Women's Wages)
  Local Productivity Associations
  Local Productivity Associations
  Industrial Safety Training
  Industrial Safety Training
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  B.E.A. Scottish Routes
  B.E.A. Scottish Routes
  Air Services, Highlands and Islands
  Air Services, Highlands and Islands
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Abolition)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Abolition)
  Pipe-line Transmission
  Pipe-line Transmission
  Mobil Shipping (Arab States' Boycott)
  Mobil Shipping (Arab States' Boycott)
  Electricity Supply (Emergency Plans)
  Electricity Supply (Emergency Plans)
  Property Bonds
  Property Bonds
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968
  Platinum
  Platinum
AGRICULTURE
  Prepacked Foods (Date Labelling)
  Prepacked Foods (Date Labelling)
  Meat and Meat Products (Prices)
  Meat and Meat Products (Prices)
  Animals (International Transport)
  Animals (International Transport)
  Toxic Contamination
  Toxic Contamination
  Price Reviews
  Price Reviews
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
DEFENCE
  Persian Gulf (British Troops)
  Persian Gulf (British Troops)
  Ras al Hadd, Oman
  Ras al Hadd, Oman
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Fishery Protection Vessels
  C.S.
  C.S.
  Northern Ireland (Searches)
  Northern Ireland (Searches)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Single Women with Dependants
  Single Women with Dependants
  Thomas Cook and Son Limited
  Thomas Cook and Son Limited
  Inland Revenue Offices (Staff)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Staff)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Ministerial Statements (Official Report)
  Ministerial Statements (Official Report)
  Lobby List
  Lobby List
  Members' Salaries (Review Body)
  Members' Salaries (Review Body)
  Night Sittings (Cost)
  Night Sittings (Cost)
  Government Proposals (Press Statements)
  Government Proposals (Press Statements)
  Refreshment Department (Price Increase)
  Refreshment Department (Price Increase)
  Council of Europe Delegates (Expenses)
  Council of Europe Delegates (Expenses)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Jumbo Jet Aircraft
  Jumbo Jet Aircraft
  Smoking (Lung Cancer)
  Smoking (Lung Cancer)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Islington (Urban Aid Programme)
  Islington (Urban Aid Programme)
  Local Authority and Parliamentary Candidates
  Local Authority and Parliamentary Candidates
  Police Expenditure, Wales
  Police Expenditure, Wales
  Schoolchildren (Ouija Boards)
  Schoolchildren (Ouija Boards)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Possum Equipment
  Possum Equipment
  Nursing Profession (Age of Entry)
  Nursing Profession (Age of Entry)
  West Cumberland (Pensions)
  West Cumberland (Pensions)
  Bootle Hospital
  Bootle Hospital
  Bootle (Medical Practitioners)
  Bootle (Medical Practitioners)
  Pension Increase Proposals (Press Statements)
  Pension Increase Proposals (Press Statements)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  State Retirement Pensions
  State Retirement Pensions
  Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council
  Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Nurses (Shortfall in Hospitals)
  Nurses (Shortfall in Hospitals)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro
  Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro
WALES
  Child Care (Expenditure)
  Child Care (Expenditure)

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 SPORTS COUNCIL
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 a decision has now been reached concerning their intention to make the Sports Council an independent grant-aiding body.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I cannot add to what I said when the noble Baroness last inquired about this matter: that it is being considered and that a statement will be made in due course.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the House has been very patient over this series of Questions; I think I have been patient, too. Does the noble Lord recall that it was 15 weeks ago, on October 29, when he said that all he would ask me to do was to be patient for just a little longer? May I ask whether, for his own sake, he hopes that this will not be for a great deal longer?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is my hope. And I can bear well this gentle chiding from the Benches opposite, knowing that when my right honourable friend does make his decision it will be the right one.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may we take it from the noble Lord, in view of what he has just said, that we are going to receive an affirmative response and that it is just a matter of normal delay?—because there are many sporting organi
140
sations that know exactly what is happening in this field, and are waiting to make their own plans. But if the noble Lord is confirming that we are going to receive an affirmative answer, then I will not press him any further.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I appreciate the point the noble Lord has made, but I cannot add to what I originally said.

GIBRALTAR
2.38 p.m.
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 what progress has been made in providing adequate housing, education and employment for the people of Gibraltar; to what extent tourism has expanded and is contributing to the economy of Gibraltar; and how far the restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government have now been overcome.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Gibraltar Government have made good progress in providing adequate housing, education and employment for the people of Gibraltar. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated in another place on July 6 last, we continue to work for the removal of Spanish restrictions, which remain an obstacle to progress towards a settlement. In the meantime, Gibraltar continues by a process of adaptation to overcome the effects of the Spanish restrictions.
The economy continues to make good progress. For example, tourism is expanding. Last year inclusive holidays increased by 25 per cent. and local expenditure by tourists is estimated at about £2·6 million, with a net contribution to the gross domestic product of £1·12 million—slightly more than for 1969.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask him whether there is

141
any difficulty regarding labour, either, on the one hand, in unemployment or, on the other hand, in the securing of skilled labour that was some time ago withdrawn by the Spanish Government from Gibraltar?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is true that there has been some difficulty, as the noble Lord will realise, in the matter of obtaining labour. Nevertheless, progress on housing is going ahead very satisfactorily.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when the noble Marquess says that it is going ahead satisfactorily, can he give us any idea of the number of houses that have been built in the last twelve months? Also, can he say whether the hostel has been completed?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, there are quite a few facts and figures that I can give the noble Lord. At the moment there are 373 housing units under construction, of which 110 are due for completion this year. I am not certain whether the hostel has actually been completed yet, but work is progressing on it.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, will the noble Marquess forgive me if I ask him to reply to my supplementary question regarding the supply of labour? What I asked was whether, on the one hand, there was any unemployment and, on the other, whether Gibraltar was still suffering from the withdrawal of skilled labour by the Spanish Government some time ago. I am afraid that he did not answer that question.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, since the withdrawal of Spanish labour there have certainly been more jobs available in Gibraltar than Gilbraltarians to fill them. Therefore there is to that extent a shortage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there are any definite signs of improvement in the attitude of the Spanish Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot say that so far as Gibraltar is concerned the new climate between the British Government and the
142
Spanish Government has shown itself. Of course we continue to press the Government of Spain concerning the restrictions which they have imposed on the country.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the fact that there is a shortage of labour in Gibraltar and a serious surplus of labour in this country, according to the mounting unemployment figures, the transfer on a temporary basis of sonic workers from this country to Gibraltar might not help to solve both problems?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is another question, which I should like to consider.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does the noble Marquess not think that this is another place to give a plebiscite to, to determine whether to go with Spain or with England? And does he not think we ought to have a plebiscite on the Common Market?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that that also is another question.

CHINA: RELATIONS WITH BRITAIN
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 interests of world peace, the Prime Minister will consider making a visit to Peking, with a view to establishing direct personal contact with Chairman Mao Tsetung, Premier Chou-en-lai and other Chinese leaders; and to bringing Diplomatic and commercial relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China back to a more normal basis.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Prime Minister has no plans to visit China. Our relations with China over the past year have shown a marked and welcome improvement. Our more frequent contacts with Chinese officials both here and in Peking should ensure that the Chinese Government are fully aware of our wish

143
for continued improvement in our relations, especially in the commercial, cultural and scientific fields. Our commercial relations with China are good and exports in 1970 amounted to £44·6 million.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that encouraging Answer, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he would not agree that it is a danger that by far the largest and potentially most powerful nation in the would should remain indefinitely in total isolation from the West, and does he not think that as the United States of America cannot possibly take the initiative in this connection the time will come quite soon when a major attempt should be made by Her Majesty's Government in order that there may be a breakthrough?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's views on this matter. We are working towards increasingly friendly relations with the Chinese régime, and I hope my original Answer will have satisfied the noble Lord on this point.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer and hope that we may learn the lesson of the mistakes made by the Soviet Union? I believe that the history of the Soviet Union could have been much less austere if it had been brought into the community of nations sooner and more completely, and I fully endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, when he asks that if China is now in a mood to have better relations with the West we should go halfway to meet her.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely take that point.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that some of us—and there are quite a few in your Lordships' House—have had the opportunity within the last twenty years of conversations with Chou En-lai and have been able to trace a friendship towards the United Kingdom, even if that friendship did not extend to the United States of America? Would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister went out there in order to push much more widely open the door which is now slightly open?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord will realise I cannot commit my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in this matter, but I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Marquess tell us whether it is true that China is the only country which has succeeded in matching the rate of growth of the population to the supply of resources?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Not without notice, my Lords.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, the noble Marquess, in his reply, alluded to the improvement not only of commercial but of cultural relations. Is he in a position to give us tangible evidence of that?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I should like to write to him about that matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the sympathetic response to these questions by the noble Marquess, why is it not possible for the Government to extend an invitation to the Heads of State of China to visit our country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Baroness has said.

FUTURE BUSINESS: ROLLS ROYCE (PURCHASE) BILL
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short Business Statement. It is expected that this House will receive the Rolls Royce (Purchase) Bill in time for your Lordships to take it on Monday, February 15. The House will therefore meet on Monday to take the Bill through all its stages. If for some reason the Bill has not reached this House from another place, a debate on the subject will arise on an Opposition Motion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Statement made by the noble Earl. I understand that the intention is to take this Bill through all its stages on Monday; but there may well

145
be a desire on the part of some noble Lords to put down Amendments on Committee stage. If there is difficulty and the Bill has not been presented, I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider, perhaps with the noble Earl the Leader of the House, ways and means by which, if noble Lords do wish to put down Amendments, they can be put down and be made available to the House before the Committee stage is taken?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. Perhaps we may consider this through the usual channels to see whether we can find a way to satisfy the House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was expecting a Statement from the noble Earl the Chief Whip as to the possibility of a Statement later this afternoon on the Court of Inquiry into the Central Electricity dispute.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I must apologise to the House. I should have informed the House that there will be a Statement at a suitable moment after half past three.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

WORLD POPULATION AND FOOD SUPPLIES
2.50 p.m.
LORD SNOW LORD SNOW rose to call attention to the problem of the rate of increase of world population, relative to the supply of food and natural resources; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce the Motion standing in my name. Most of what I have to say will be familiar to your Lordships, which means that I can be reasonably brief. But that, I am afraid, is the only cheering remark that I have to make this afternoon. For, my Lords,
146
the future is black. We are moving into a situation which the world ha, never known. One dislikes absolute statements, but that is the truth. We are moving into this situation every hour, every week, every month, every year. We are not moving into it exactly blindfold, for a great many people all over the world have seen what lies ahead. One of the unique features of this unique situation is that we know all about it—or at least enough about it—beforehand. We can see the crisis. The trouble is that, having seen the crisis, we then look away; we look into our own parochial concerns. This appears to be true all over the advanced world.
Sometimes in my blacker moments I think that we in this country may be worse than any other country that I know. We are tending to become more parochial, more bowed down by troubles which, though they are genuine, really do not weigh against the great troubles that the world faces. I do not mean by that that successive Governments of this country have been totally unaware of the world's greatest problem. That would not be fair. In fact this Government and the last Government have supported bodies such as the United Nations Agencies, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the O.E.C.D. I believe that there is a statement about support for the I.P.P.F. coming to-day; I have not yet seen it. That is good, so far as it goes; but this concern, or this appearance of concern, has not gone at all deep into the whole society. In general we are looking inwards, not outwards; we are continuing to look inwards until the crisis comes.
The first fork of this crisis is, of course, population. I do not know about your Lordships, but I tend to find it very difficult to assimilate figures if they are given in a speech: figures are made to be read and not listened to. But I must give one or two, and I shall give them in billions, adopting the American usage, which has now become international. It is also the shortest. My Lords, from the time that man became man—roughly half a million years ago—until 1830 the population of human beings on this planet rose to about one billion. From 1830 to 1930 it rose by another one billion; it was about 2 billion in 1930. From 1930 to 1960 it rose by one more

147
billion, to 3 billion by 1960. By now it is about 3½ billion. By the end of this century it will be 7 billion, give or take one or two per cent. on either side.
That increase to 7 billion is quite inevitable. Nothing we can do, even if we take the wisest actions in the world, can stop it. Unless we take wise actions to save ourselves, by quite early in the next century that population will have doubled again to 14 billion; and obviously, unless we try to save ourselves, this process will go on indefinitely. These are terrifying figures, of course. Our ancestors, when death was more frightening than birth, used to have a skull on their desk reminding them that they, too, must die. I sometimes think that every politician administrator, decision-maker in the world ought to have a chart of this progress of births in front of him, every day of the week, to remind him that they, too, will be born. The prospect is perfectly clear. There it is.
One can ask quite reasonably why it should have happened, and the answer is curiously simple; it is almost entirely the effect of medical technology. Medical technology, which entered in a primitive way with the Industrial Revolution, succeeded in greatly abating infantile mortality; and from then on the process is automatic. This medical technology has spread all over the world faster than any other, so that the infantile mortality in any part of the world, poor as well as rich, is dramatically reduced. That is not the entire explanation, but it is the main reason for this extraordinary flood of population. Technology, remember, is a queer thing; it brings you great gifts with one hand and it stabs you in the back with the other. No one in his human senses would want the use of medical technology to be restrained and to let children die; that is unthinkable and intolerable. But we have to take the result and the consequences.
This flood of increasing human life would be bad enough in any circumstances. It is worse because it is very unevenly spread around the world. The world divides, for various of our argumentative purposes, into two sets of countries, the rich and the poor. It is fashionable to call them developed and underdeveloped, or developed and developing.
148
I prefer simpler words: let us call them rich and poor. The rich are those who have got through the first stages of industrialisation; managed to produce enough food for most of their populations; managed to provide housing and to maintain the span of life at a reasonable level. These are not very lofty things, but they have never previously been done in any large society. They are now being done over the whole of the Northern Hemisphere—the whole of Europe, the Soviet Union, Japan. Those are the rich countries, as I say, luckier than any human societies have ever been in terms of primitive human requirements. The rest of the world—Asia, Africa, Latin America—are, of course, the poor countries, where none of these very simple primitive human requirements is being met on a mass scale.
It will not have escaped your Lordships that the poor countries are almost entirely what we call coloured, and that the rich countries, with the exception of Japan, are almost entirely what we call white; and this adds another hitter difficulty into the position. The rich population of the world now represents about one-third of the total and the poor population, of course, two-thirds. By the end of the century, the rich population will be rather under a quarter, and the poor population just over three-quarters. That is the dimension of the population problem. If this enormous process of birth goes on, the proportion of people in the poor countries will become overwhelmingly larger than the proportion of people in the rich.
If the world consisted only of our own group of countries—the Northern Hemisphere—then, though the problems would be difficult, they would not be insoluble: we could cope. It is true that simply by the fact of being rich we are diving very deeply into the world's resources. On average, the person in the poor countries has a per head income of about one-tenth that of the person in the rich countries. But there are bigger differences than this. Between us and India, for instance, the Englishman, on the average, has an income 20 times as high as the Indian. In parallel, the average Englishman takes 20 times as much as the average Indian of the world pool, judged by any criterion you like to use—metal, energy, anything else. He also

149
adds 20 times as much to the world pollution by the process of living in a rich and developed country.
It is very good that people should have got interested in pollution, interested in the results of our own success—which is what it amounts to in technical terms. But, though that is important, it is a symptom and not the real condition. Pollution is a symptom of the whole complex that I am trying to describe, not the condition in itself. And though it can be coped with at the edges—and I am very much in favour of trying to cope with it—let us be quite clear that it is not going to mean that the whole problem is being tackled. It is like trying to remove a spot on the face when there is something much more seriously wrong with you.
And though the raids on natural resources are very serious, though the astonishingly prodigal way in which we have spent fossil fuels in the last hundred years is serious, this is a secondary problem compared with the primary problem and brutal problem which is of course food. This is vital in the simplest and most literal sense. Unless we can feed this enormously growing population, then clearly we are faced with intolerable disaster. There are some who believe that the food will always be forthcoming, that human ingenuity will always find a way, that God's mercy will somehow descend and we can feed not only 15 billion people but 30 billion people, or even 60 billion people.
That seems to me to be false optimism gone mad. False optimism, in the experience of most of us, is one of the more dangerous of human attitudes. I have seen more minor and major mistakes made by false optimism than I have seen made through qualified pessimism. In any case, we know the opinions and the judgment of people who are qualified to speak on this highly professional matter. There has happened what your Lordships will have heard described as the "green revolution". This is a splendid achievement, one of the great technological achievements of our time and certainly the most purely benevolent. It was done on a shoestring. When one thinks of what is spent on an aero-engine, then the fact that for something like £3 million Dr. Borlang and his collaborators contrived to save millions of lives makes
150
one think of the oddities of human achievement and activity.
It was done by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations setting up a laboratory in Mexico, headed by a Scandinavian American called Borlang, who with tiny resources produced grains of wheat and rice which can survive in tropical conditions and give much increased harvests. That is the simple statement of the position. This has happened. Harvests in India, Pakistan and parts of Asia have been very much larger than they have ever been before. As I say, this has saved millions of lives. Dr. Borlang got the Nobel Peace Prize last year. No Nobel Peace Prize has ever been more deserved. But I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to what he said when he received the Peace Prize. He said:
"You must not exaggerate what I can do. I have done very little. What anyone like me, all my collaborators, the whole agricultural science of the world can do, is to win mankind breathing space, perhaps twenty years, to cope with this situation: certainly no more than a generation".
He went on to say—I believe these were his exact words:
"If we cannot reduce the human rate of growth, then the species will destroy itself".
Well, those are dramatic words. I should not like to speak quite so strongly or go quite so far. The human species, like the rat species, is remarkably tough, and I can imagine the human species going on in conditions which to us would be intolerable. But certainly, unless we can apply some kind of salvation, in the next century those conditions will be below any condition that we should like to see for our successors. I think that is a mild statement, but it is a fair one.
Out of this proliferation of people, this certain scarcity of natural resources and of food, I do not see large-scale war; I see much more in the nature of continuous commotion—commotion such as we are already finding in the cities of the rich world, spreading all over great urban slums in the poor world. I do not think that large-scale famine is upon us, at least at once. I imagine that there will be local sporadic famines, patches here and there; great malnutrition all over the poor world; seething discontent; urban slums such as we have not yet seen, although we have already some idea of what they are going to be like—this, like a gigantic cancer going

151
right through the poor world. I believe that is slightly nearer the probable truth than talk of destroying the species; but it is bad enough.
The United States, which will be richer then than it is now (because once you become a rich country you cannot help becoming richer; that is one of the oddities of the situation: that by the year 2,000 will be at least twice as rich per head as it is now) will be sitting at the top of a continent which will see some of the most extreme misery that the world knows, because Central America, where population is doubling every 20 years, and South America, are going to be much harsher to contemplate even than Africa. I cannot, for the life of me, see how a society such as that in the United States is going to find this prospect morally tolerable. I do not think that for more than a very short time they are going to find it practically tolerable, either. Those are the consequences unless we can affect the issue—even marginally—within thirty years.
What is to be done? What can be done? I am afraid that all the steps that one can suggest seem quite minor judged by the cataclysmic size of the whole position, the whole developing crisis. Clearly, we must support the "green revolution". It needs support. It has run into financial difficulties of a foreseeable kind. You cannot just have an improvement in agriculture without supporting help in industry and various other things. You need what, in the jargon of the day, is called an infrastructure in order even to keep the "green revolution" going. That can be done. That kind of assistance is within our power. We need to put money into the World Bank's activities and into those of the agencies of the United Nations.
It is worth while remembering how extremely enlightened the World Bank has been on the whole problem, under the leadership of Robert Macnamara. His statements have been the bravest and most forthright of any world figure. The rich countries will have to support these activities far more handsomely than they are doing now. They will have to supply more money to the poor world in various forms. The limit which the poor world can at the moment absorb is probably quite low. My noble friend Lord Blackettwill,
152
I believe, be helping us about that part of the problem later in the debate: he has thought far more deeply and far longer on this matter than I have, and he is more informed than anyone in your Lordships' House.
The idea that you can take, say, one-tenth of the g.n.p. of America and pour that into the poor world is absolutely out. We are limited by a whole set of really serious barriers. But all those things that we can do, we must. If we do them, they are but slender hopes at the best; they are just palliatives. They will help, and they must be done, because we have to tug at every feeble string of hope presented to us. Until we get the poor countries to work from their own internal selves to reduce their rate of growth, there is no fundamental answer to the whole problem. That is vital, and there the signs of hope are very small. President Marcos of the Philippines has made an enlightened speech and has produced something in the nature of a population policy. President Kaunda has also spoken in reasonable terms. But those are exceptional. Most of the poor world is resisting even any suggestion that this is a task for them. Yet it can be done only by them. It is ridiculous to imagine, and it would be the worst kind of politics and human judgment to imagine, that we can influence them on such an intimate human level. And yet they have to take action.
They distrust us. They distrust the rich countries. They have a good deal of reason to distrust the rich countries. But here, for once, they are wrong. This is a matter of much more importance than any relics of history, than any suspicions that they are going to be cheated in commercial deals. None of that matters. If we wiped out the rich world to-morrow, if the whole of the Northern Hemisphere disappeared under the Atlantic and the Pacific, then the poor world would have the same problem facing it in exactly the same way, and awaiting their own solution.
Until we can contrive every sort of influence upon the poor world, we shall only be playing with the problem. We are only playing with it now. The trouble is that there is not one single voice in the West who will be listened to with even a degree of trust by most of the leaders of the poor world. Nevertheless, it seems to

153
me that we have to go on trying to persuade them. We have to be patient, we have to take snubs, we have to take all the symptoms of suspicion and distrust, and we have to continue stating what is obvious sense for the whole future of mankind. I believe that in the long run voices like Dr. Borlang's will get through. It is absurd to suspect that Dr. Borlang had any other motive than saying the simple and bitter truth. I believe this will get through, but it may be too late. Whether it is too late or not most of us here will not know, but, on the other hand, our successors, people now in their twenties, will certainly know, for it is upon them that the weight of this problem is going to descend. There are many of the younger Members of your Lordships' House who, in middle age—it is not very long until the end of the century—will be facing the full, biting reality of the situation which I have tried to outline.
I have here one ray of hope. I believe that the educated young all over the world, in the West and perhaps in this country as much as any, are extremely sensitive to the problem. I believe that, by one of those curious processes by which men adjust themselves to some profound change in the world they are living in, they know instinctively much more about it than we do. I believe they are more sensible; they are more sensitive; and they have, perhaps unconsciously, a deeper world insight. This gives me some encouragement.
Your Lordships may remember the change in the attitude to race which has happened within twenty or thirty years. Race, to the educated young, is now a dirty word. They will have none of it. Some of your Lordships' speeches occasionally seem to them to belong to another realm of existence. Race is just impossible as a discriminant among the educated and active young. That seems to me a profound and possibly unconscious, possibly conscious, response to the kind of disturbance which they are fitting themselves to face. They have to be able to get on with the poor of the world. They travel among them far more widely—at least my acquaintances do—than any generation has ever done before. They know at first hand what poverty looks like, what it is like to be in Calcutta and Karachi, and what it is like to go through Africa. All these things
154
seem to me to be a possible ray of hope. At least they know what they are going into: it is going to be their world. As they themselves say, they cannot afford to give up hope.
We are leaving them a hideous legacy. It is not our fault. It is absurd to take too much blame for this; it is one of the great manifestations of history. But as a fact we are leaving them a hideous legacy—which they at least are getting prepared to face; and, whatever they are doing, unlike most of us they are not looking inwards but looking out to the world.
I remember not very long ago a deep and moving speech by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he was saying that his main reason for wanting to go into the Common Market was if, and only if, going into Europe could be used as a method of moving into this world outside. I believe that to be a very deep and very wise remark. I should like to subscribe to it. I believe that our younger generation would subscribe to it with enthusiasm. I believe that in that spirit they will face this human crisis which, up to now, the world has been spared. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, it is with more than normal gratitude that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for having raised this topic to-day. I have myself received requests from several quarters over the past few months to raise this matter in your Lordships' House, and I must admit that I took a pessimistic view of the possibility of obtaining a major debate so soon after our debate on pollution which touched, as it had to, on this matter. But the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has achieved it, and he has earned our gratitude not only for doing so but for the simple, convinced and expert speech by which he has introduced this debate, one which I think will live in our minds and memories for a long time and which I, for one, pray will do so.
The population of the world, as we have heard, is increasing at a rate totally unparalleled in its history, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. One or two Members of your Lordships' House have seen the population of this country

155
double in their lifetime. Many of your Lordships' House have seen the population of the world double in their lifetime, and many will see it double again. There is no point in going in for detailed forecasts. Experts differ, and any individual forecast can usually be shown to be likely to be wrong. For myself, when looking at this problem I look at the forecasts produced in that invaluable book on this subject Population: Resources: Environment by Paul and Anne Erlich.
But I believe that we must avoid getting bogged down in individual predictions. There is one basic fact which is incontrovertible: it is that man is multiplying, and that he is doing so in a finite world. We may have been thrilled this week by the expedition of man to the moon and into space, but if we rely on the moon for the future of this planet, we are indeed crying for it. This is a finite world with only so many resources. We may discover more of them, mine more of them, grow more of them; we may recycle more of them. But however fast we do so we are populating this world faster than we can produce the resources.
H. R. Hulett, of the Stanford University Medical Centre, has estimated that if you regard the average inhabitant of the United States as having not too high a standard of living—and, of course, the average inhabitant of the United States would not regard himself as having too high a standard of living—and consider that it is therefore a reasonable standard at which mankind should aim, then in terms of resources the population of the world is already four times too big to support that standard. It may be that such a standard of living is undesirable, but the realisation of this fact may give us some ballast when we think of the promises that we so airily make to the poor in want.
I do not know whether the limiting factor in population growth will be found to be food or raw materials or our production of waste materials—pollution; I rather suspect that the last may be as important as the first two. But that there is a limiting factor, and that we are quickly running up against it, is undeniable. We have a challenge before us. We must increase our resources, we must re-cycle our resources, but we
156
must also halt the increase of population. There are only three ways of doing that: starvation, the bomb or the pill—and I know which I prefer.
In this context—because I am not going to dwell on the world problem for very long—I should like to commend to your Lordships the start of a new family planning international campaign. Some of your Lordships will remember the very successful campaign under the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. Now there is a new one being launched under the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, which is deserving of all our support. I have considerable sympathy with those who say that we must not rush around the world telling black children that they should not have been born. It is for this reason that, at the risk of appearing parochial, at the risk of being inward-looking, at the risk of avoiding the majesty of the big problem which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has put before us, I want to concentrate to-day on what should be done in Britain.
Of course it goes without saying that we must help the World Bank, we must help the United Nations, we must help any international body in tackling this problem. But I hope to show your Lordships, very briefly, that we cannot hope to do this unless we have a population policy for Britain herself. We need it, first, because we have here in England and Wales, though not in Great Britain as a whole, a denser population than almost any country in the world, except Holland—certainly far denser than Japan—and because, increasingly, people are beginning to believe that there are far too many people in this country already. At a recent conference consisting largely of professional biologists, over 90 per cent. of those present thought that the optimum population of the United Kingdom had already been exceeded.
Secondly, we can set an example in a way which some other countries cannot. In parts of the developing world, including India, the security of a man and woman—even their life in old age—may depend on how many sons they have working for them. We have social security; their children are their social security stamps, and it is up to us to set an example. Thirdly, I believe that we shall not begin to be trusted—and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, said that the

157
rich countries are not trusted—unless we are seen to be doing something ourselves.
Fourthly, I believe that the kind of chaos and trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, predicted will come within the lifetime of some of us who sit in your Lordships' House. I believe that Western Europe, by making itself self-supporting, can probably contribute something which will not be purely selfish in that time of trouble. But for that we must be self-supporting. I do not think that the argument for greater manpower in this country is particularly strong. The economic results of more manpower are highly arguable. Most economists confess that they do not know the long-term effects, and many of them disagree. The fact is that we are getting richer. In an aside to me when the noble Lord, Lord Snow, was speaking, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that the belief that because a country is rich it must get richer did not seem to apply to this country. But, with due respect, it does apply to this country, and although we may be getting richer only slowly, and more slowly than other countries, we are getting richer and there are some sacrifices which we can still afford to make. Even if we have to make do with less growth through having a population policy—and I do not admit that we necessarily have to—it will be worth it.
What, therefore, are the steps that we must take? First, we must have a population policy. Of course, a population policy is so far unknown in this country. The then Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Richard Crossman, giving evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Science and Technology on March 11, 1970, had this to say:
"Answering historically, it is a fact that up to now Governments have not considered population policies. One of the reasons is that they were not capable of having one, because they did not have available to them the essential facts and statistics on which such a policy could be based. It is only recently, since the war, that statistical knowledge of, not only demographical factors, but all other economic factors has developed to a point where one can even consider the possibility of having a rational population policy based on a factual estimate. You have to look 10, 15 or 25 years ahead. A population policy does not make much sense unless you look that length of time ahead. The
158
possibility of making projections which enable you to do so is relatively modern."
But the Royal Commission on Population recommended in 1949 that the numbers of the population should be stabilised, and that the Government should make some official body responsible for a continuous watch on population movements and their bearing on national policies. The Commission said that it is impossible for policy to be neutral on this matter, since over a wide range of affairs policy and administration have a continuing influence on family size; and that control by men and women over the numbers of their children is one of the first conditions of their own and of the community's welfare. Twenty-one years later we need to begin to put all this into practice, particularly now, as Mr. Crossman admitted, that we have the tools to hand.
Secondly, the body which is in charge of population policy must immediately get to work on a definition of an optimum population. In the meantime, perhaps we could accept that stabilisation of the population is a desirable end. This is an urgent need, especially since we shall very shortly be in the course of stabilising our immigration policy; and I do not know how we can really deal with an immigration policy unless we first have a population policy. Thirdly we must reject the possibility of limiting population by bribes. Any scheme for reducing family allowances and the like has the totally immoral effect of penalising the children.
Fourthly, we must establish a National Family Planning Service to work with the National Health Service. As an immediate step we must see that local authorities exercise the powers that they now have to spend rates on family planning clinics. Long-term reliable contraceptives, like the diaphragm, the loop and the pill should all be on the National Health, as should sterilisation for both men and women. Fifthly, we must advocate and encourage equality of opportunity for women. Of course this is worth while for its own sake, but it is also worth while from another point of view. Only too often—and many noble Lords will know that this is true—women have babies because they cannot think of anything better to do. Some noble Lords may laugh, but it is quite true

159
that towards the end of a period when women have had two or three children, if there is not much chance of going out and taking up another profession, or of finding a worthwhile job, and if they find themselves lonely and with little to do, there is a great subconscious, and sometimes conscious, temptation just to go on being a mother, with more children. Sixthly, we must persevere with any research which helps us with contraceptives, or research which may bear on the problem, such as the predetermination of the sex of children. I am sure that fewer children would be born if some families did not go on trying to have a boy, or trying to have a girl, when they were having only children of the same sex.
My Lords, this is an urgent matter. We must not let ourselves be diverted from these great aims. There are many people who would rather turn away from the whole problem of family planning because they think that "sex isn't nice" and we should not publish material about it. There are many other people who think that the best way of punishing someone for having sex out of marriage is by letting her have a baby—a more immoral proposition than which it would be almost impossible to conceive. We must not allow our ostriches to put their heads in the sand about this problem, nor those who misguidedly pursue a blind policy which must bring misery to frustrate our task.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, talked about the skull which sat on the mantle-piece, the momento mori. Some of your Lordships may remember the play by N. F. Simpson, The One Way Pendulum, where the man goes up to the mantle-piece, picks up the skull and shakes it. His wife says, "Why did you do that?", and he says, "It is not working; it does not remind me of death". We need a momento mori always before us which will remind us of our problem. This is, I believe, long-term, the major problem of both home and foreign policy. For the first time, seriously, we are beginning to discuss it. Let us not shy away because prophets of doom are unpopular. Prophets of doom are unpopular until they are proved right, and the last thing that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, and myself, and others who think like us, want is that we should be proved right. Please help us to be proved wrong.
3.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for giving us a chance to discuss one of the major problems of our world; and as one who joined your Lordships' House only seven months ago, may I be allowed to say that I was specially interested in his speech, not only because of its knowledge and because of the feeling with which is was given but also because it was delivered without a single note. We are fortunate that he decided to relate this great matter to natural resources and to food, although, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, it is likely that other noble Lords will follow him in many different aspects of what is indeed a vast problem. While I was honoured to be asked to take part in this debate, I must say that as I was preparing for it I felt rather like the Chinese student before an examination, who was told to write all he knew—"Time allowed, three months". My Lords, it would take me, unlike the noble Lord, much less than that to write all I know on this subject.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who is to speak later, I have had the opportunity to serve as a delegate to the United Nations and to see something of the work of our international organisations in this field. I have also, therefore, had to travel to many countries where both the enormous population and the great size of the illegitimacy rate have caused problems which are only too clear for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, started his speech by saying that the outlook was black. Indeed, in his writings, which I have had the honour to read, he has given us persistent warnings over the years, as indeed has a neighbour of ours in Scotland who will be well known to him, Lord Boyd-Orr, who has also made a lifetime's study of this subject. Although to many some of those warnings seemed somehow far away when first we heard them, after a number of years the sheer insistence of them has begun to tell on many people who are well outside Parliament or who have had the opportunity to travel.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, experts differ, and there are wide

161
variations, not only in population statistics but in learned opinion, but I think that we in this House could all agree that if the present trends continue the world's population will roughly double by the end of this century, and that even in Britain our own population is expected to rise in that time from 55 million to at least 66 million. As your Lordships are aware, there is considerable division of opinion whether the world can, by better husbandry, feed this tide of human beings when already there is in many countries not only hunger but widespread malnutrition. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Snow, referred to Professor Borlang who has, as Lord Snow recalled to us, helped to develop important types of wheat and maize and who has done a great deal to increase yields, particularly in Asia. He certainly tends to share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, because he has said that unless we strike a proper balance between population and food resources there may well be a monumental crisis within thirty years, and if the world population continues to increase at the same rate we shall destroy the species.
On the other hand, my Lords, the F.A.O.'s judgment is that, given continued high cereal prices, the steady expansion of areas under high-yielding varieties, controlled irrigation and the use of modern techniques of production, it is technically possible for the developing regions as a whole to produce surplus exports in wheat, rice and possibly feed grains. But that must assume ideal conditions of water supply, pesticides, fertilisers, trained labour, high-grade seeds and credit and marketing, and above all a very much better distribution throughout the world. No doubt many noble Lords have seen, as I have, the silos right across the prairies of Canada, full to the brim with wheat which could not be sold and which had in the end to be distributed as a form of aid-in-kind.
Many people assume that through the United Nations the countries of the world will come to terms with each other on even elementary matters such as this; but it is still a hope and it seems a long way off. So we must all make an immense effort through the United Nations, the World Bank and many other organisations at home and overseas, and through our own resources, to increase good-quality food. We must recognise that
162
there are grave doubts as to the capacity of world agriculture to feed the world population to-day even at subsistence level, unless the world's birthrate is reduced. It is clear that unless this is achieved it will be quite impossible in future to raise the standard of living to the extent that everyone hopes.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, spoke also about natural resources, and I should very much like to deal with that in detail later, if I may, in case other noble Lords also refer to it. I would come, first of all, to what is our world aid for family planning in developing countries. The total amount is increasing and probably exceeded £40 million last year; and this is matched by the same amount by the developing countries themselves—and this does not take into account related matters, such as health and education. The latest and largest programme in India began in 1952, but it still protects only some 10 per cent. of the relevant age group. Its greatest success has probably been in sterilisation. The United Nations decision to have a world population conference in 1974 was passed by 53 votes to 9, with 33 abstentions and a few absentees. It was supported by the United Kingdom. I have quoted these figures in order to show the sensitive religious and economic questions that are involved; for each country has to decide whether to have a population policy and whether to request assistance.
The Government have, however, decided to increase their grant to international organisations and as the noble Lord, Lord Snow asked for them, I felt that I should give to your Lordships the latest figures given in another place yesterday. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development said that of the grant of £400,000 to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, £250,000 will now be paid in the current financial year instead of £150,000, which was the sum originally proposed, Next year, 1971–72, as well as the remaining £150,000 of last year's grant there will be a new grant of £600,000, bringing our total contribution to the Fund in 1971–72 to £750,000. This year's grant of £200,000 to the International Planned Parenthood Federation which was announced on May 14 this year, is being increased by £50,000, and in

163
1971–72 there will be a new grant of £275,000. Finally, for 1971–72 a grant of over £10,000 to the O.E.C.D. Development Centres Population Units will be made as in the current year. In other words, for international organisations for family planning and population control the total grant will be doubled; from about £500,000 to £1 million.
With the help of the Overseas Department Aid Population Bureau, started in 1968, bilateral assistance has been provided or offered to various countries such as East Africa and others in the Western Hemisphere, including a recent offer of £1 million to India. Certain relaxations in the rules which apply to British capital aid and technical assistance programmes are being made. This is to meet the special requirements for developing countries' family planning programmes; for example, in the matter of financial assistance for local costs and giving grants for equipment. A small high-powered interdisciplinary institute was recommended to the United Nations Secretary-General at the end of November last year by the United Nations Committee under Mr. David Morse and the cost is estimated to be about 8 million dollars for the first five years. The Government have confirmed to the United Nations the previous Government's willingness in principle to house and contribute to the costs of the institute. The Secretary-General and the United Nations' various agencies are still considering the Morse Report.
I think that I should turn now from overseas aid to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, because, as he said, he wished in particular to refer to the situation in this country. He asked whether one could not have what—
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but before she passes on from the question of aid, may I inquire whether the giving of aid has ever been made conditional upon the adoption of a satisfactory population policy?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, it has not.
The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked whether we should have what he called a population policy
164
for Britain. Before I go on to that point, I must take issue with him, if I may, on his remarks in which he said that when women had nothing else to do they just had children. If I assess rightly the feelings in this House, noble Ladies from whatever quarter will support me in our condemnation of the noble Lord's views. The question of a population policy, as such, involves certain very difficult and sensitive questions such as, for example, whether a Government of the day should decide on the size of a particular family. We have always felt that the decision on the size of a family must be a personal choice encouraged by education and access to different methods. The essential element is that there should be choice—because for many, of course, there is none.
The noble Lord asked what else was being done on the question of family planning in this country. The question of whether there should be, for example, a study unit on population growth is being carefully studied by the Prime Minister at this time. This would help in compiling the statistics and in estimating the size of the problem; and we are still awaiting the recommendations of the resumed Committee on Science and Technology which began their studies last year and will no doubt before long come to a conclusion on their findings. The Secretary of State for Social Services is expected very soon to make a statement on family planning in this country. Without doubt there has been much unhappiness and bad health caused by the failure of families, or of those unmarried, to consider the consequences of an unwanted child. The Government feel that there is a real need for many to seek advice and that they would do so if it were available. While the Abortion Act has been widely used, for obvious reasons the Government and no doubt all those concerned would prefer that it were not used to such an extent. Local authorities throughout the country now have statutory power to develop family planning.
I feel that it is true to say that men and women are beginning to understand the size of the population problem, but it is very difficult for them to do so unless, in a way, it touches them personally. I think that out of our great urban conurbations there is a growing search for the

165
peace of the countryside, an escape from the population of the city, from the crowds and noise. As John Stuart Mill once wrote.
"It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species."
But there are still many countries who believe that a large population will give them a better standard of living; and many Governments believe that their power resides in rising populations.
Therefore, I end as I began. There are wide variations of opinion on this most vital subject, which is why I look forward to hearing noble Lords; because I know that there is a great knowledge on this matter in this House. At the end of the debate, I shall try my best, if given leave, to answer matters raised; but I hope that I have managed to convey to your Lordships the Government's concern in this matter and the action they are taking both at home and overseas to tackle an enormous problem which must in the end touch us all.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE: THE WILBERFORCE REPORT
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. The Statement is as follows.
"The Report of the Court of Inquiry chaired by Lord Wilberforce into the dispute in the electricity supply industry is being published this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office"—
and, in parenthesis, I would add, in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House—
"It makes three main recommendations.
"First, the Court makes recommendations about rates of pay. For all industrial staff other than skilled workers, the Court recommends that the employers' offer of an increase of £2 a week should be accepted as fair and reasonable and should take effect from last September. This recommendation covers around two-thirds of all industrial
166
staff. The Court recommends that this offer should be increased by £35 a year for skilled workers only and that some increase should be made in shift allowances. It also recommends that the employers' offer of one day's additional holiday should be increased to three days. The Court recommends that these improvements over and above the employers' offer should take effect only from December 14 when industrial action ceased.
"Secondly, the Court recommends a speeding up in the introduction of the local incentive bonus schemes provided for under existing agreements dating from 1967. It considers these by far the best way of ensuring an efficient and well-paid labour force, and believes that the present rate of progress is too slow and causes real dissatisfaction amongst unions and employees. As an incentive to both management and employees to make more rapid progress, the Court recommends a scheme of 'lead-in' payments to operate by June 1 for those groups of workers who are not by then covered by bonus schemes. Such a group would be offered a 'lead-in' bonus if a majority of employees in that group formally accepted by majority vote the introduction of a bonus scheme in principle, the carrying out of such work study and work measurement as would first be necessary and the need to run down the number of employees to the point where a bonus scheme could be introduced and bonuses earned. Thereafter each individual worker would be asked to sign a note of acceptance. The 'lead-in' payments would be 20s. a week increasing to 30s. in October, 1971, and to 40s. in January, 1972. They would however stop once a bonus scheme was introduced or such a scheme was rejected. The economies to be achieved are in the Court's view of such a scale that these payments should not add significantly to labour costs.
"Thirdly, the Court found that the action of the Unions in refusing to let the dispute go to arbitration was a breach of their Agreement and the Court deplores this action. The Court also finds that the action taken during the work-to-rule was in many areas in breach of agreements, and that it was

167
wrong for the Union leaders to put the public at risk by a failure to issue more specific instructions to their members. The Court recommends that obligations and responsibilities should be clarified for the future.
"In framing these recommendations the Court considered in particular the productivity record of the industry, including the contribution the Unions and the employees have made, and the bearing of the public and national economic interest. The Court says that it recognises that the country is at present in a dangerous condition of spiralling inflation; and that it should have regard to the dangers of giving this an extra twist. It concludes, however, that set against past and prospective performance in the electricity industry and the special factors relating to this case, the settlement it recommends ought not to intensify inflationary pressures.
*"The employers estimated that their last offer would have increased average earnings by 9·7 per cent. On the same basis the Court's recommendations would represent 10·9 per cent. in the year from September, 1970. The total addition to the wage bill should, however, be substantially less than this with the continuing reduction in the labour force which the Court believes should be accelerated with the more rapid extension of bonus schemes. It is in this way that the Court believes that electricity workers can best—and justifiably—benefit from increased efficiency in the industry.
"The Court makes it clear that its recommendations are related specifically to the circumstances and special factors in the electricity industry, particularly the contribution that the Unions and employees have made and can increasingly make in improving productivity. There is therefore no question of the Court's recommendations being applicable in other industries in different situations. I must reaffirm—as the Court itself accepts—that if inflation is to be brought under control the general level of pay settlements must be reduced as rapidly as
* The last three paragraphs of the Statement were omitted in error by the Minister Without Portfolio, and are recorded by leave of the House. (See c. 235.)
168
possible to a level much closer to the general rise in national productivity.
"I have communicated the Report to the employers and Unions concerned, and I understand they will be discussing it together at an early date. I hope the recommendations in the Report will provide an early settlement."
That, my Lords, concludes the Statement.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. It is a very important Statement and it was a very important Report that caused the Statement to be made. I must say straight away that I welcome the Minister's general acceptance of the Report and his clear recommendation to the parties concerned. I hope that this will have the effect of bringing peace to this industry which will last for some time, so that the public will not again be put at risk of the difficulties we experienced last year.
There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord. Can he tell the House whether there has been any indication to the Minister, Mr. Carr, of the union's attitude to the Report? I know that it is a little early, but the Report has undoubtedly been in their hands now for some little time. Can the noble Lord tell the House, in general terms, what was the Court's reply to the terms of reference relating to the national interest? Did the Court accept it as a proper function of a Court of Inquiry that it should have regard to the national interest or did it reply that this was more appropriately a matter for Government and not for such a Court?
Judging by the Statement, and by the figures that are in it and what I have been able to reckon so far, it appears that the Court has made recommendations which total, together with the improvement to be made later this year, some 15½ per cent. That is the figure as it appears to me, but I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing the Report itself. Without wishing to embarrass the Government, may I ask whether the Minister can say whether this sort of increase will be looked upon favourably in connection with the claims of the gas

169
industry? I believe that such claims have been awaiting this Report. Will such a settlement be possible if the likely productivity within that industry is in any way comparable to that which the Court has found in relation to the electricity supply industry?
Then it seems to me that the Post Office management, and the Unions concerned, have been awaiting this Report. Will the Minister now call together the two sides in the Post Office dispute in an endeavour to bring about a settlement of a dispute which is disrupting the business of the country? I believe that ought to be done as soon as possible.
My Lords, we are bound to need a little additional time to study this Report before coming to a final conclusion upon it. In the main, however, it seems to me that this has been a Court of Inquiry—it was pressed for by our side, in the other House and here—that has justified itself and, I am bound to say, has to some extent justified the claims of the electricity unions concerned. I am sorry that I have asked a number of questions, but I think that they are important in this context and I shall be happy to receive replies to them.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn for repeating the Statement? I certainly hope that this Report will lead to a settlement. I propose to limit my comments to one question—I think it is one that raises a matter of considerable principle. Does the noble Lord agree that the Court not only acknowledges the value of productivity agreements but also recognises that all those who by the nature of their jobs cannot enter directly into productivity agreements should nevertheless share in the overall benefit?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his reception of this Report. I hope he will maintain that reception, in spite of the fact that I am bound to tell him that his estimate of the effect, in terms of proportion of increase in earnings, is rather more than the Court itself considered it to be. The estimate before the Court was that the total cost of this would be an extra 10·9 per cent.
LORD CHAMPION: That is the immediate cost.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, 10·9 per cent. is the immediate cost. As to the cost so far as productivity arrangements and incentive bonuses are concerned, these of course are contingent on and very closely tied to—as we believe it quite right to do—individual productivity within groups; and one has to bear in mind that this is not included in the 10·9 per cent. But it is not expected that when any new schemes of this kind are introduced they will materially increase the total electricity bill for wages.
The noble Lord asked whether there has been any indication of the Unions' attitude to the Report. The answer to that is, "Not yet". I do not think they have had it for long enough. He also asked what was the Court's comment on the terms of reference relating to the national interest. I do not think I ought to put a gloss on this, but in Chapter 4 of its Report the Court deals with the questions at issue and says there that it would have taken account of the public interest, of the national interest, whether or not it had been told to do so.
Then the noble Lord asked whether the sort of increase recommended in this case would be looked on favourably for other industries. The Report makes it clear that the Court is relating its recommendations not only to financial interest but also to the specific conditions within the electricity industry itself. It follows, therefore, that the Court recognises that in every industry there may be special considerations that have to be looked at, but it places very great emphasis on the need to have regard to what the Court calls the dangerous situation of spiralling inflation at the present time. I was also asked whether my right honourable friend would call together the two sides of the Post Office. I am sure that the House will recognise that it must always remain entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State to judge the best moment for doing this kind of thing. Of course he will watch this situation very closely indeed, as he is doing just now, in order to find a suitable moment.
I am bound to say that I did not quite understand the implication of Lord Wade's question, but if what he means is that in considering productivity agreements, those who are negotiating should consider not only those immediately concerned but also the interests of the public

171
at large, I would say that the answer is most certainly, Yes.
LORD WADE: My Lords, would those who do not directly benefit from a productivity agreement but are employees benefit by this incentive bonus or in some other way?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, none of us has had an opportunity of reading this Report very closely. But in reply to the noble Lord's last question I would say that it seems to be the case that it is possible for all industrial gradings to be covered by the productivity agreements, and the Report does not look beyond them.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord rather doubted the figure which I gave. Will he tell us what are the figures in the Report, which starts with the figure he mentioned for the immediate increase, and then the total? Am I not fairly near to it in saying about 15½ per cent. overall?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I said, it is impossible to say what the overall figure would be. I suppose that one could give a figure if one assumed that the productivity and incentive agreements would extend to everybody over a period of time; but, of course, it is not envisaged, even in the Report, that this would be achieved very quickly. In fact, the evidence that was put before the Court (if my memory serves me correctly) is that 50 per cent. of the industrial gradings might be covered by the end of this year.
On the point of what was the actual estimate in the Report, the estimate of 10·9 per cent. is not in the Report, but I am authorised to say that the Court has confirmed that this is the figure that was before them.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to reveal to the House at all the grounds on which the Court has asserted that an award of this order of magnitude is not inflationary?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Court has expressed its belief that the award will not add a further twist to inflation.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, would not the noble
172
Lord agree that it is undesirable to take a percentage figure on this recommendation, in view of the fact that the award obviously does different things to different categories? Would it not also be advisable for this Chamber to take note that the Inquiry has chastised the Unions for not going to arbitration? Let us be wise in our turn and accept the findings of the Court, and not start questioning them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether I heard correctly that the unskilled workers are to get no advance beyond the 8 per cent. that was previously suggested? Is it not the case that the first priority to-day should be to raise the living standards of the unskilled workers, many of whom are not receiving a living wage?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand that the original proposal was that there should be a flat rate increase right across the board. The Court considered that it would not be right to put the skilled craftsman at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the skilled craftsman in other industries, and therefore it was desirable to give them rather more than is given to the unskilled worker.

WORLD POPULATION AND FOOD SUPPLIES
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, after that extremely important Statement, I should like to take your Lordships back to the outer world. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, as I might have done, for I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, dealt with him effectively, if I may say so, on one particular point. The noble Baroness said that she found this a difficult subject to deal with, and in discussing it with many noble Lords I find that this is a general view. So much is involved in the whole problem of population, which is tied up with food resources, wealth, poverty, hunger and malnutrition. All these things form

173
a vicious circle, and as fast as one learns about one aspect, other problems just as serious pop up and one has to think about them, too.
No one, especially in your Lordships' House, wants to make an unconstructive speech, and the fact that my noble friend Lord Snow has put down this subject for discussion and dealt with it with such outstanding distinction is constructive in itself. Although it is only too easy to describe the tragedies of the hungry and the horrors of the pullulating shantytowns growing up all over the world, filled with unhealthy and under-employed people, it is very difficult to suggest courses of action to deal with the problems. Though in a sense this sounds contradictory, the solutions we have at the moment, such as they are, are entirely international and yet intensely local. That adds to the difficulties.
We all know that few of the developing countries, the poor countries as my noble friend calls them, can possibly produce the administrative, the sociological, the financial and research facilities, which they each need for their own particular way of tackling their problems. Equally, it is impossible for any outside State or international agency to impose solutions in matters which involve the whole economy of a country, its cultural traditions, its family life, its agricultural practices and all the rest of it. It is absolutely true that the Pearson Report, which your Lordships have discussed often, stated that:
"No other phenomenon casts a darker shadow over the prospects for international development than the staggering growth of population."
As my noble friend Lord Snow pointed out, it is not that, initially, more babies were being born but that because of modern medicine more babies survived: and now, of course, more babies are still being born because those babies survived.
It is unthinkable that we should try to reverse this practice. It is equally unthinkable that we should try to withhold in any way the knowledge with which people can combat the terrible problems of population. It would not only be ethically wrong, but practically wrong, because the peoples of the world are growing much closer together. No longer do the poorer countries stay in their own backwater (if I may put it in
174
that way), but they see the standards which the rest of the world enjoys, and this inevitably brings frustration, aggression and unrest. So the whole world must attempt by some means to solve these problems.
We know about the 300 million people my noble friend referred to who are permanently hungry every day, but there is another problem which is perhaps even more immediate, and this is the problem of employment. A recent O E.C.D. Report pointed out that the G.N.P. growth rate was at an almost unprecedentedly high rate in economic history, yet nevertheless the problem of unemployment was getting worse and the G.N.P. growth rate had benefited only a minority of the people involved.
Arising from the population growth is another important factor; namely, that there is a serious imbalance of the population. Not all of your Lordships may know that 45 to 50 per cent. of the world's population are children. That means that they are dependent upon the adults who are producing what wealth there is to go round. Even more serious for the immediate future is the fact that owing to the unprecedented rise of the population in the 'fifties, there is a tremendous rise in the potential labour force now in the 'seventies. The O.E.C.D. has predicted that there will be 170 million more unemployed in the poorer countries, on top of the tens of millions who are already unemployed. This is a frightening problem, especially when one remembers that they are all young people.
Here, again, you have contradictory factors when you are trying to solve the problem, because it is a question of the total economy of the country, which includes planning, education, social security problems and all the rest of it, and above all the call of the towns to people in the backward rural areas. So you have to spend money to do something about the urban unemployment problems, but if you do so you will increase still further the plight of the poor from the rural areas. The first thing that I think everybody has to consider is how to improve the rural areas themselves: because one-third of the world's population is still living in those backward rural areas, and will continue to do so. The way to do that is first of all to spend money on agricultural

175
research. It is essential to improve agricultural methods.
But that also has to go hand-in-hand with social improvements, and where is the money to come from for all this? When I am in poor reserves in Africa talking to African peasants I am always reminded of the old American song after the First World War:
"How'ya gonna keep him down on the farm,
After he's seen Paree?"
They think of Nairobi, the bright lights of Salisbury and the other capitals in just the same way. And why should they not?—because there are the things they want, like education, social security and better medicine, quite apart from the bright lights. So it must go hand-in-hand, and we have to think up new kinds of technology: we have to build on the things we have, like intermediate technology, which not merely give jobs to the people in the rural areas but teach them to be more self-reliant; not to look forward merely to becoming factory hands, especially when they will not get the jobs they want. These are the kinds of new technology on which we have to spend money and which we have to help the poorer countries to put into their own particular economies.
Then, again, we need a new approach to education. It may sound rather topsy-turvy, but if you are improving farming methods it is probable that you have to concentrate your education on the adults rather than on the children, because as the adults are working on the land the children cannot be expected to affect their farming methods. Equally—and we are back to the old problem—if you take the children into the traditional primary education, then they will not want to stay on the farms, because it does not equip them for that. So, once more, whichever way you think of it, new problems crop up as you are solving the old ones. In the matter of education there are problems that our fathers and those splendid teaching missionaries never even thought of. But they must be solved, and solved urgently, as my noble friend and the noble Baroness have both said.
Again, if you improve farming methods you have to produce markets in which the farmers can sell their produce. This, in its turn, means more town planning.
176
Probably we should plan to expand the existing market towns and have small cities rather than improve the great metropolitan centres. All this would be a conscious act of planning policy. So far we have not trained enough people either to teach other people in those countries or even to do it ourselves as expatriates. So we have to make all our efforts towards training in all these different subjects.
Then again, in the towns, once you are improving the rural areas—and the whole thing has to be done side by side—we must have a new approach to industrial problems. For instance, we must have a more labour-intensive policy for industry, and equally for construction work. Most of the big construction works are undertaken by large expatriate companies which, quite rightly for their own reasons, bring in their own machinery and do not use much local labour. That is right from their point of view, but it is wrong from the point of view of the individual country itself. So here again we need a new approach and a new thinking towards this kind of problem.
The Council of Europe had an extremely valuable Report on Employment and Development in 1970, which called for a greater labour-intensive kind of programme; and when the noble Baroness comes to speak again I shall be interested to know whether the Government have taken notice of that Report. Perhaps also when the Government are discussing matters of this kind with organisations like the Commonwealth Development Corporation this approach to construction and industry can be discussed with them, so that a new way of thinking comes right through the general approach. But whatever we do about the immediate problem of employment, the whole thing will turn for the future—both the immediate and the long-term future—on population; and, as the noble Baroness has said, this means adequate family planning programmes throughout the world.
At this point I should like to welcome very warmly indeed the statement the noble Baroness made about the increased amounts given to various kinds of population programmes by the Government. If I may say so in passing, I greatly welcome the contributions to the International Planned Parenthood Federation,

177
which does a magnificent job. Of course, we always look a gift horse in the mouth, and we should like the contribution to be even greater, but if the noble Baroness can explain to me what percentage of our aid this amounts to I shall be grateful. I gave her notice of a slightly similar question. I found that a little country like Norway, when it was allocating aid, specified that 10 per cent. of it should be devoted to family planning programmes, and I wonder what percentage the United Kingdom Government are aiming at in that regard.
As the noble Baroness said, the difficulties about family planning are political, ideological, sociological, religious and even racial. Wherever you go, you will arouse the most fundamental emotions and reactions. As a small illustration of individual political difficulties, the programme in India, to which the noble Baroness referred, has been bitterly criticised by the Communists as just an effort to cover up the economic failures of the Government. You encounter this kind of reaction particularly in the poorer countries, where you sometimes have to run ahead of local opinion. We all know about the broader religious difficulties, the fact that Roman Catholic influence slowed down the United Nations' programmes for curing the population problem, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam also have their own difficulties. They have some misgivings about the freedom of the individual to evade his predetermined destiny. All these things cause people to be suspicious of plans for the limitation of population.
On the racial question, again to which the noble Baroness referred, and which my noble friend Lord Snow put in the global sense, and with which I entirely agree, in Africa, when training nurses in various post certificate courses, and, of course, in family planning, I encountered enthusiasm among the women, but the deepest suspicion among the men. They were convinced that the "wicked white men" were trying to limit the black population. As my noble friend Lord Snow said, you need trust and you need education to overcome that kind of difficulty. The United Nations Population Commission will also have this kind of difficulty because the Socialist countries and Latin America and Africa, tend to think that
178
it is the "wicked, imperialist, capitalist beast" which is putting a smoke screen over the rest of what he is doing by trying to keep down their population. Again, it is a question of education and trust.
Nevertheless, we have to solve the problem in spite of all these things. Basically what we must do is to have more research. This is undoubtedly at the back of the possible solutions that are available. The Ford Foundation estimated that we need to spend 170 million dollars annually to break the back of the problem, whereas for the past five years the world has spent only 35 million dollars annually. So there is a very large gap to be taken up. But in spite of the fact that this research must be carried out internationally, questions of family planning can only be dealt with at grass roots level, and can only be dealt with together with family welfare and health schemes.
Apart from the fact that this is morally right, it is the only way to reach the women, and it is only through women that we shall get serious family limitation. You cannot rely on men to take the matter seriously, because it is not they who have the babies. This is an eternal truth, whatever the colour of your skin. It is the women who will bring this about in the end, but for this, again, you need education. Not only must the mothers be educated; you have to educate the grandmothers also; you have to change cultural patterns and family traditions. That can only be done locally and cannot be imposed from the outside. In this, the status of women and the role of women is of paramount importance. Where the status of women is improved, you almost automatically get a fall in the population rate. The fathers have to accept a slightly different role in family life in the poorer countries.
On this point, I was touched by an account I read by a Japanese lady describing the different sort of family that there had to be. She said that before the war the father in a Japanese home was,
"all powerful and showed big concern. But it is better to have a consulting father than a ruling father; a whispering father than a shouting father; a democratic father than an all powerful father. We are in a democratic society, and if raised in a democratic family atmosphere we shall be good democrats."
I think that goes for other places rather nearer home as well as for Japan. It is

179
a key point that family planning touches the family and the root of everything that is closest to mankind.
We must have more money spent on research and, like my noble friend Lord Snow, I welcome what the World Bank has done. It is particularly important because people are not so suspicious of the World Bank. Senator Fulbright once said that nobody had ever seen, "World Bank Go Home" chalked up on anybody's wall. That is the kind of way in which we can help to solve this problem.
Turning to the question of food resources, this is a difficult aspect of the problem, because it is both international and local; and again the key to it is more research, and for more money to be spent on research. Quite apart from improving agricultural methods, which we talked about before, we must have new kinds of food. Also, and perhaps even more difficult, we have to have new patterns of eating, especially in the poorer countries. It is quite probable—I do not know whether my noble friend will wholly agree with me—that, given proper administration and distribution, with the green revolution we could solve the calorie problem—enough cereals, and so on. But, even if we solve that problem, the next problem is protein. Cereals only allow people to survive, whereas protein provides the energy for work, for development and for raising people up to proper living standards. There is not enough of the ordinary protein available in the world, so we have to have new kinds.
I have been reading lately a fascinating book by a Dr. Pirie called, Food Resources. It is a Pelican book and I recommend it to your Lordships, not only because it is fascinating and extremely witty, but because the proceeds from the book go to Oxfam, so I should like to give it a "plug". Dr. Pirie describes the different new forms of protein: leaf protein, coconut protein, oils protein and microbial protein. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Blackett will be describing this in greater detail. For instance, they are growing yeast protein on the waste products of petrol, which sounds very odd. Indeed, when you tell people that you are going to feed them on that they say, "We would sooner eat grass." That is one
180
of the problems: you have to teach people new dietary habits.
I was reminded that when Captain Cook was in a difficulty, not having enough food for his sailors, he tried to persuade them to eat walrus. He had great difficulty in persuading them to do so, although they were practically starving. He complained about his crew's
"ignorant opposition to my best endeavours to serve them. Every innovation whatever on board ship, though ever so much to the advantage of seamen, is sure to meet with their highest disapprobation."
This always happens when one tries to introduce new foods to people. My noble friend Lady Scrota reminds me that it is just the same with our own families. Here again, this is a matter of education and sending the right people, because it is no use sending to underdeveloped countries teams of people who sit and eat their own food out of tins; they must eat exactly the same foods as they are suggesting to the people who live in the country concerned. As I say, this again is a matter of education and training the right people.
For instance, tremendous difficulties were encountered with the yeast protein I was just describing. When it was introduced to a vegetarian community in South India it was repudiated because it smelt of meat. When it was introduced to a Muslim community it was repudiated because of its association with alcohol. So it is always important, as Dr. Pine points out, to consult the local theologians first, and if possible obtain their cooperation, or at any rate make sure that they are not going to be hostile. Such are the smaller problems which illustrate the enormous extent of what we are to do if the world is to survive this crisis.
It is, my Lords, a tremendous challenge. In 1962 Professor Sir Julian Huxley was talking about the science of ecology, which he called the science of balanced relations of living organisms and their environment. He said:
"Ecology will become the basic science of our new age, with physics and chemistry and technology as its handmaidens and not its masters."
My Lords, I wish that were true. When we think that we spend far more on one single aspect of physics, such as the nucleus or space, than all we spend on agricultural research, on population research and on medicine put together, it

181
makes us feel a slight sense of despair. We must have new thinking; we must have a different kind of intellectual effort. We must meet this challenge. Man has usually met the challenges that arise. This one is probably the most serious that he has ever faced.
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, there are two closely associated matters covered by this debate on which I should like to speak, quite briefly. I do not intend to say anything about world population or its control, but I would largely associate myself with things that other noble Lords have said on that subject. The first matter, one that I think we must consider more seriously, is the implications of maintaining our Western industrial concept of the standard of living; and along with it the tacit assumption that ultimately this must be something which is shared by the whole world, including the underdeveloped countries.
The second matter is the implications of some of the methods whereby we are enabled to intensify the production of food. In this connection, we ought in this debate to pay tribute to the work which is done in research stations and laboratories. I know of one particular plant-breeding station where the results in producing a much greater yield in new strains of wheat have been quite remarkable over the last five or ten years. We ought not to underestimate the importance of what could be achieved, particularly if sufficient money were available for that work to be greatly extended.
However, there is another aspect of the intensification of food production, and that is the possible dangers on the land itself. It is taken for granted not only that we must maintatin our existing standard of living but that in fact it is reasonable that much of our effort and economy should be directed to increasing that standard; and to this objective both Government and industry demand a certain annual increase in the gross national product. But to do this we are required to have industrial processes which are cheap enough to compete with the industries of other countries in order that we may continue to gain world markets. But such cheap expansion of industry means that industry itself cannot afford the high cost of avoiding pollution
182
of rivers and coastal waters, and of the environment itself, unless other similar industries in other parts of the world are prepared to do the same. Yet to allow the means by which our standard of living is maintained or increased to destroy the elements in the environment which are essential for man's wellbeing must clearly in the long run prove quite disastrous.
Similarly, in the field of agriculture the desire for greater yields and greater profits—and there is nothing wrong in these things by themselves; clearly they are needed—may lead us to methods of agriculture which can break down even the richest soil. Quick return in any process which is handling or using natural resources without a proper consideration for the wellbeing either of the present generation or, still more important, of future generations can only spell disaster. We ought not to forget that the North African deserts were once the granary of Rome. I believe that sufficient evidence is available to show that we cannot remain complacent about these things in this country and certainly not in the field of agriculture.
Towards the latter part of last year there was an article in The Times, under the heading "British Soils Under Strain", by Professor Aimey. He wrote:
"British soils over quite large areas of this country are under strain. The last three years have demonstrated this only too clearly to the men who farm them."
Quite recently in Lincolnshire a leading agriculturist told me of certain lands in the county which he considered were now so severely strained that their future agricultural use was very questionable. Just because the strain is not illustrated in any spectacular way, it is easy for the strain to be discounted and for the damage to continue; and the situation is not likely to be improved while the farmer and the farm worker must still continue to subsidise large urban populations with cheap food. Inevitably, in the present financial climate of the agricultural industry methods of cultivation are being employed which are using up both the soil structure and the fertility which a balanced husbandry over many generations has slowly built up. If we lose that soil structure and fertility, it is replaced only at the cost of great expense and, of course, time.

183
In the days of the agricultural depression, many years ago, I remember an old farm worker saying to me about a farmer who came in and was taking everything out of the land and putting nothing back, "It isn't right. We owe it to the land." That is what I mean by "reverence"—a sense that in dealing with the natural things you must have a certain reverence and regard for them in themselves, apart from the benefits which they may confer upon you. I believe that the scientist displays precisely such an attitude in the particular field of his research. There is a detached concern and regard for the matters which are engaging his attention. But I believe that equally the results of the scientists, particularly when they are expressed in technological processes, must be subject to the same kind of appraisal. We cannot allow the basic means of man's existence to be destroyed, in the interests either of immediate profit or of a short-term increase in the standard of living. The standard of living must be related to the capacity of the natural environment to renew itself. If we use the environment in such a way that it does not renew itself, then we are bringing the disaster even nearer to hand.
There must, therefore, be a new dimension in which we think about these matters. A particular process may be technologically possible, but it does not necessarily follow that it is in the best interests of society for the future that that particular process should be pursued: it may have side-effects which are infinitely more dangerous and harmful than the immediate benefits of the process. Up to now it has generally been assumed that man's exploitation of the world in which he lives and of the natural resources could be made good. But it is no longer possible to make that assumption. I believe that there is an inevitable implication in this case that as never before the processes by which man lives, propagates, cultivates, makes profits for his own fulfilment—all these must be subject to the moral judgments of society, both nationally and internationally and, man being what he is, I do not believe that this can be done without some forms of both international agreement and national legislation.
4.43 p.m.
LORD BLACKETT: My Lords, I want to start by expressing what I am sure all noble Lords present feel, namely, our great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for introducing this exciting debate. It was a powerful performance and to me it was entirely emotionally convincing. I think I agree with almost everything he said, but I have some differences about attitude to them. I feel a little like the would-be philosopher in the 18th century who tried to learn philosophy and then gave it up saying, "The trouble is that cheerfulness keeps breaking in". I think we underestimate the rapidity of the change in the world attitude to these matters. Only twenty or thirty years ago these things were not discussed at all. I remember that when I gave an address to the British Association in Dublin in 1957, in which I very gently and tactfully referred to the population problem, the next day the headlines in the paper were "Professor Go Home". I do not think that would happen now.
If it takes, as the noble Lord, Lord Snow, mentioned, 30 years to double the population—and I will come back to that point in a moment—society has 30 years in which to change its fundamental assumption. After all, a great deal has happened in my long lifetime. I was born in the era of the high point of British imperialism—and look what we have been through! All these things we have taken in our stride and they have not destroyed us, and I have an irrational "hunch" that we are not going to destroy ourselves over this issue, although I may not be able to put it very rationally. I think one of the reasons is that it is extremely important—and I constantly do it—to express a situation in a few striking figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has done. It is also important to go behind the figures, to break them down and see what things are really like.
May I say straight out that the assumption is that we are going to destroy ourselves through failure to cure population growth. But of whom are we saying this? Speaking from a limited knowledge of China and one visit there, I think it is the least likely thing in the world for them to do. They have their population under extreme control and they could decrease it or increase it, just as they wanted to. I do not know about the

185
Soviet countries, but at any rate two of them—Jugoslavia and Hungary—and also Japan, have got their birth rate down to a level for stabilisation. With a life expectancy of 70 years, a 14 per 1,000 birth rate—that is per 1,000 of the population—is needed per year to stabilise the population, and three countries have already achieved it, for some reason or other. What they can do others can do. If you go round the world you will find very different conditions, but when you go to those countries you find that things can be done.
Going back to what I was saying before, there are more things to be done over here than perhaps noble Lords have so far suggested. But countries are so extremely different. The African countries are not going to destroy themselves. They have plenty of land, and in so far as they can get any capital they are all right for time. America, ourselves and Europe are the ones who have to make up our minds what to do, and I say quite frankly that I am glad the noble Lord reminded us of the recommendations of the Commission on Population in regard to stabilisation. It was so long ago that I had forgotten it, but I think it is perfectly sensible to fix a target by which Britain should decide notionally on a date by which to achieve a rough stabilisation of the population.
Let us go back to the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, gave us. In this year, 1971, there are 3·5 billion people in the world. This total is increasing at the rate of 2 per cent. a year, and by the year 2000, as we were told, it will be about 7 billion. If you went on for two more periods of 30 years each there would be another factor of 4, or so, and you would reach something like 30 billion, which is said to be the maximum possible number of people that can be squeezed upon this globe, however poorly housed. It is a crazy top limit.
I agree with all that was said, that it is highly unlikely that the things we can do now will make a great difference in the rise during the next 30 years from 3·5 to 7 billion. That is probably true. Nevertheless, it is vital that the changes are started well before the end of that period because it must work in the latter period. I am sure that we can afford, without a terrific disaster, an expansion
186
to 7 billion, but we cannot afford at all the expansion to 30 billion. Stabilisation has been suggested in some of the American documents, which aim at stabilisation by about 2050, or something like that—half-way through the second factor of 10. That seems to me to be a reasonable figure that could be planned for.
Why should not some group here go into the question of working out realistically what the change in Britain would be like, socially, economically and industrially, if it aimed at stabilisation by 2050, or perhaps a little later?—it could not be done by the year 2000. This has not been thought of; it has not been worked out. As the American books have said, there are no biological difficulties in stabilisation, it is purely a fact of the economics being quite different. What is the motor industry going to be like with a stable population? All kinds of things like that have to be thought out. All the countries will have different problems and will look at the question of stabilisation in different ways. Someone has to start. Why should not this country, if we believe in stabilisation, say that we will seriously consider working it out. I am not suggesting that the Government should undertake this; I am sure that private bodies would do it much better, would be less inhibited, and could tell the Government the result. We could do it in this country and then collaborate with our foreign colleagues in other countries.
Who is going to flood the world with people? The country I am most interested in and sympathetic to is India. India does not have a land surplus. It is doing well in the Green Revolution, but it is absolutely vital that this should be followed by generous aid—because the limit of the Green Revolution is now capital investment. India does not have the capital investment for all the other things that are needed: fertilisers, pesticides, tractors, storage and education. All that costs money. So the limitation of the green revolution is not biological; it is purely investment, and therefore aid. India constitutes a very serious problem. No one has tried to rule 400 million people by a democratic parliamentary system, and I think India is doing rather well. It certainly has not been tried in Europe. India has a difficulty and knows it. It has ideological objection to birth

187
control of any type, and is making propaganda with extreme energy. It has not managed to cover a large part of the population, because it is such a vast population. If you take India as a difficult case making a valiant attempt, we could enormously help India with its problems, including extension of the green revolution, if we doubled aid. As I pointed out in your Lordships' House a year ago, India gets the lowest fraction of aid per capita of any of the develop-countries from the O.E.C.D. An extra 1 per cent. of aid to India would enormously facilitate many of these things we want done.
South America I know little about. There you have ideological and religious objections to be cleared away before anything can happen. Europe has no ideological objections. Stabilisation in Europe is possible, if it is necessary. I am not saying that they should necessarily do it, but if it is necessary to set an example it is a small price to pay. If you go to the various countries you do not find extreme gloom—maybe they ought to be gloomy, but they are not all gloomy. I think there are many more things to be done than are evidenced in some of the discussions to-day.
Since various speakers have said almost everything that I think ought to be said, I will spend only a short time thinking about what we can do. We are here, in spite of our difficulties, an extremely prosperous country, a very comfortable, happy country. What can we do, those of us who feel about this problem and think that it is extremely dangerous and that something must be done? First, far more study of the problem must be done. It was not studied thirty years ago. Economists are still completely divided as to whether the appropriate technology is a dirty word or a good word. All these problems of technology and so on are extremely important. Economists have not made up their minds.
All kinds of intellectual discussions are needed to think about these things, about the effects of the changes that should be made. Anything that can be done to spread family planning is obviously of high priority. It is outside my field, but certainly it ought to be supported to the useful extent. What is the
188
useful extent? Economists in India have worked out by simple calculations that it would pay India to spend 150 dollars to stop one life. That is an estimate of the cost—this is in a country where the income per head is 100 dollars a year—to clothe and house and set a man to work. That is a rough figure, something comparable to the income per head. Aid to India in these sorts of things should indirectly help them to reduce the birth rate, because that will help the industrialisation of the country. The usual argument is generally true, that the better the standard of life, the less the incentive to have lots of children to cover lack of an insurance system. So that kind of aid can be indirectly one of the ways of helping them. The intellectual thought about the subject is what I am really interested in, to consider whether in fact a definite target for a standardised population is not sensible politics.
4.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it is my lot—perhaps I should say my luck—to be in the position of having to follow a Member of your Lordships' House of the distinction of the noble Lord, Lord Blackett. At the same time, many of your Lordships, notwithstanding that this is a debate on food shortage, are anxious for some tea. I will do my best in a very few minutes to make some contribution.
It is conventional for us to thank the initiators of these debates, and I hope that if I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for raising this question I shall not be considered entirely conventional. In the two years that I have been attending your Lordships' House regularly this seems to me much the most important debate in which we have engaged, and I am honoured to take part in it. It is also conventional to try to make contributions to such debates out of some experience, and I am afraid that I cannot offer very much. I suppose my best raison d'être is that I have a reasonable statistical likelihood of bearing the brunt of our present population policies. I suppose that I should, with a bit of luck, survive until the year 2000.
It is extremely difficult to experience this problem existentially, yet that is what we have to learn to do. I do not know how many of your Lordships have

189
been hungry. I have to say, to my shame, that I have not. I have witnessed hunger. I have been working in refugee camps in Jordan, but only for some three months of my life; and that is the only time I have come face to face with it. Like most people who have nudged into their thirties and see the great acres of middle age spreading before us, when I think of food I think of it as a temptation increasingly to be resisted, and that is a problem to us in the rich West. We do not experience this phenomenon sensually. Unless we can experience our task sensually, I think life will be difficult for us. "Bring back Lent" might be the moral in this context.
I did, however, have a kind of Jungian or racial experience of the problem in that I was born and brought up in Ireland. I should like to issue a caveat, in so far as I can, about hopes for the Green Revolution based on the experience of that country. As your Lordships may remember, in the early nineteenth century Ireland went through a Green Revolution of her own. A poor country, she nevertheless was able, through the adoption of the potato crop, to sustain a relatively high standard of living, given the low standards of the time. In terms of goods or money, the Irish population were very badly off. They had to raise, in difficult soil, cereal crops, in order to pay rent and to meet their requirements under the land tenure at the time. Nevertheless, there was always enough food to go round.
But when that Green Revolution failed—and monocultures, as your Lordships know, are singularly prone to failure and to dangers—a complete ecological, environmental, social and historical disaster took place; and we are still reaping the fruits of that disaster. It would ill become me to be complacent or to see any cheerfulness in the great hunger of Ireland; but one has to face the fact that in those days there was somewhere for the Irish to go. If we were faced to-day with this difficulty all over the world there would be no place for us to go: there is no America across the seas of space for us to colonise.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, moved me very much when he said that in his experience there is not a single statesman in the Western World who has the trust and confidence of those who have a sensual
190
experience of poverty of this kind. I lived for some years in America, and I had the honour to know slightly the late Senator Kennedy, of whom your Lordships may have been reminded by Mr. Jenkin's excellent article recently in The Times. Senator Kennedy, by a nice irony I thought, as very much an Irishman, seemed to me to be the one person I have met, or perhaps read about, who had this opportunity, and it was tragic that a short time after I met him he was cut down before there was a chance of his using his gifts in that direction. We must, I think, provide, not leadership exactly, but counsel; and the only way we can supply this is to start taking our own advice, to counsel ourselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, said that he saw a ray of hope in the attitudes of the year. Again, I have some sensuous experience of this as a university teacher. My pupils come to me with great regularity and say, "We understand that you have something to do with politics, albeit politics of which we are suspicious. Can you advise us if there is anything we can do, if there is any organisation we can get into in order to help the Third World, and to earn our living thereby?" One of the things which impresses me about them is that they are most anxious to enter this field of endeavour professionally; they are not concerned to put in two or three months of charitable activity; they want to know their stuff and to execute it.
I want now to come to the difficult question of what politics can do. I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir that one cannot initiate vast cultural shifts politically. It seems to me that political action is most mature when it is sensitive and responsive to already extant cultural shifts. But that does not mean that we pack it up, those of us who are interested or work in politics. We have to remain alive to the cultural possibilities, to the change of attitudes which are available to us.
It is here, if I may risk charges of parochialism from the noble Lord, Lord Snow, that I feel that your Lordships' House is doing a good job. It is becoming increasingly clear that the great political issues of the modern world are essentially cultural; they are not fundamentally political. You could say that

191
Russia, China, the developed countries, the undeveloped countries for the last hundred years, have all, whatever their differences, however close they have come to war, however many wars they have engaged in, had a single objective, the amelioration of the lot of the lower sections of mankind or the more deprived sections of mankind. I do not think there is much historical argument about that. But, by the ironies of human psychology, these very objectives, the very closeness of such objectives, have brought us time and again to the brink of self-destruction.
But I find in a developed country such as ours an enormous hope, an enormous joy, in the fact that we have within the framework of our Legislature an arena in which we can debate and filter through some of these alarming and also challenging cultural affairs. It would be a great shame, I think, in spite of my respect for the media (I have myself been a journalist) if we were restricted to the mass media for such a debate, if there were no legislative forum in which such matters could be aired; and that is why I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for raising this issue.
Finally, there are, I think, a few signs outside that a cultural shift is taking place which may improve our situation vis-à-vis population. In the last few days—we still have a few ahead of us—we have been debating in Committee questions about drugs. We have had debates here recently about sexual permissiveness, sexual matters, especially as they are disseminated throughout our culture on the mass media. I am not at the moment going to state my views on either of those questions, but I think that even those of your Lordships who are most alarmed at some of the concerns that we are taking up, our sexual permissiveness, our interest in drugs, would have to admit that these are increasingly biological. Our tastes and our habits of living, our cultural patterns, are becoming directed, both for good and ill, towards the whole man, towards the bodily human unit.
When I was an undergraduate ten years ago, most of us thought more about cars than we did about people. I notice a large shift in my students away from the hard machine to what William Burroughs calls "the soft machine"; that
192
is to say, man himself. Even if this produces alarming tendencies, or tendencies that one feels one should resist, it seems to me to be a new humanism which may come to our aid.
The only thing possibly controversial that I have to say, I say as a Christian of a kind, with considerable regret and reluctance. It appears to me that a great Church is doing active harm to the chances of mankind of ameliorating its population crisis. I urge all of your Lordships who are Roman Catholic as I try to remind myself who am somewhat of a High Anglo-Catholic, to put pressure in secular organisations as well as in spiritual ones, for a rational re-approach to this problem. Again, the attitudes of the Roman Church towards birth control are perfectly respectable, decent, even inspiring in a different cultural context, but they have, I think, to shift to meet our new requirements. If occasionally we can find time from the pressure of legislative work, from putting our own garden in order in this country and in this Chamber, to raise great issues and to debate them, I do not think that we shall be shirking our own tasks in this matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I ask him a question about his speech? Am I right in thinking that he said that politics cannot change culture patterns? I thought he said that.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: No, my Lords. What I meant—I may not have expressed myself very clearly—is that the sort of politics that I personally most admire are responsive to cultural changes; that all great changes in human events are in fact cultural rather than political in their inception.
5.10 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the noble Earl who has again resumed his seat asked a minute or two ago whether any noble Lords had been hungry. I can assure him that I am very hungry at the present time, and I shall be glad to go to the tea room before it closes and have a round of toast and a cup of tea. I agree that I have never been compulsorily hungry, although my wife has been at one particular stage in her life. However, like the noble Earl, I have seen many who are hungry. It is because one

193
has seen so many who have been hungry, and are hungry at the present time, partly through, but not entirely, population pressure, that I join with other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for having introduced this subject this afternoon.
Heretofore I have noticed that most of the references have been made to the world as a whole rather than to this country. I will just briefly take a glance at the other parts of the world excepting this country, but I wish to confine my own remarks mainly to the population problem in our own land. The noble Lord, Lord Blackett, who spoke so impressively a moment or two ago, referred to India, which he knows very well. I, too, have taken a great interest in that country. I know that members of all Parties in that country are profoundly perplexed and concerned about the Malthusian problem which appears in that particular context; for although the Malthusian thesis may be modified in various ways here or there, certainly it is true at the moment that in India fertility is constantly outrunning available means of subsistence, even though there has been a great advance technologically and in the world of agriculture. Reference has been made to the Green Revolution. In three provinces now they are not only producing enough food for themselves within the province, but also exporting food. That is all to the good, but there are many provinces in India, and it will take a long time before the same kind of revolution spreads through the whole of the land.
In spite of the great efforts, both by the Government of India and by voluntary associations, to spread the knowledge of birth control and provide the means thereof, it is still true that 13 million per year are added to the population of India and that at that rate it is estimated that by the end of the century the population of India will be getting on for 1,000 million souls. They may or may not by that time be able to develop their technology and their agriculture to provide at least some kind of living for those 1,000 million people who will be in that land in the year 2000. I doubt it. In any case, whatever the Family Planning Association and the Government efforts of a similar character do at the present moment, they can make no difference to the population of India for a long, long time.
194
But although India is in that predicament, elsewhere it is rather different. I must say, too, in passing, that as regards India we should be grateful for the courage of Archbishop Roberts of the Society of Jesus, who, although Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bombay, was so impressed by the appalling squalor and suffering of the Indians in his locality that in the end he did more than anyone else to awaken the Roman Catholic Church to the realities of the situation which theretofore they had avoided or sometimes had distorted. In the Roman Catholic Church a great deal has gone on since the courageous work of that remarkable Archbishop. Many others have joined in with him, and to-day we see some modification of the attitude taken by that venerable Church. I only wish they had the same latitude and freedom that the Church of England has in this country, where it has certainly altered its opinion during the course of the last 60 years.
In Africa there are locally acute problems of malnutrition, hunger, and population pressure, but elsewhere it is not so bad. It is a vast continent. There are great natural resources, and there is opportunity for expansion. So far as I can tell, the same kind of problem is not likely to exist in that continent as already exists in, for example, India. There is malnutrition in Africa—I have seen it myself—largely due to faulty distribution or to an unbalanced diet, but into this we cannot go at the moment. Reference has been made to South America, a continent of which we know little in Europe. There, indeed, there is appalling poverty and wretchedness, again partly due to the inhibitions that still exist in that country against means of trying to prevent excessive fertility.
In this country, on the whole, we have a much lower birth rate than we had years ago—and in Europe, too, though this again is patchy. I would remind your Lordships that in Spain and Portugal, and in other countries—Eire, for instance, and I think in Italy still, though it has been to some extent qualified—there is a legal prohibition on any kind of family planning except that which has been ordained by the Papacy. In spite of that, a good deal of birth control does exist, but it is by subterfuge; it must be by disguise. Taking Europe as a whole, it is true that we have a much lower birth rate

195
than formerly, and compared with most of the rest of the world our standard of life is certainly high; though again I would remind your Lordships that precariously we depend very largely on oil. If we are cut off from the main sources of our oil in the Middle East, we shall indeed be in a very sad way.
Now let us look at this country in particular. To my mind it is imperative that in this small island, with at present 56 million people, we should restrict our population as a policy. I say that because if one turns up the Annual Abstract of Statistics, or seeks any other information of the same nature, it is generally agreed that by the end of this century, even with a lower birth rate than we had formerly, the population of the country will be between 65 and 70 million people. Even if we allow for the fluctuations of immigration and emigration, they will not make much difference to those figures, because at the present time immigration and emigration are virtually in balance; sometimes a few more come in than go out, and sometimes the reverse.
It is now generally agreed that in 30 years' time the population of the country will be up to some 70 million people. What does that mean in human terms? It means that in the next 30 years 14 million or 15 million people will need extra housing. At the present time we still have not caught up with the great need for decent accommodation for the people of this country, and in some ways indeed we are being retrogressive. Be that as it may, think of what it means in capital expenditure, in energy and skill, over the next 30 years. Take transport: think again what that means. When I go home tonight I shall go down a road known as Lea Bridge Road. It is exactly three miles long. It is one of the funnels through which traffic pours out of an evening. There are only three ways out of London into Essex. Many people live in the further districts of Epping, They-don Bois and Loughton, and further afield still. If I am in the rush hour, it often takes me something like half an hour to do three miles. I mention that only to give some indication of what traffic congestion means at the moment. Add to that another 50 per cent. in the next 30 years, and think what that means in
196
having to provide adequate transport for millions of people who have to pass from where they live to where they work and back again in the evening, in the Metropolis or elsewhere.
Think again, my Lords, of the amount of land that will be taken away from farming. Think of the destruction of amenities. Already many of our amenities are being spoiled because of the great road system which is now essential. Our farmers have done wonderfully well in the last twenty or thirty years in increasing yields, but it is estimated that with the decreased amount of land available, due to housing, roads and so on, the farming community will have to produce 60 to 80 per cent. more from each acre than they do now, in order to provide only one half of the food that we shall then consume.
Turning to another aspect, we all know that there is great difficulty at present in trying to guarantee an efficient and adequate water supply over the next few years. Reservoirs are being constructed here and there, to the annoyance of many who do not wish their meadowlands to be taken from them. There are complaints made by one part of the country against another part, such as the complaint that Wales has been invaded in order to supply water to English cities and towns. But the need for that will be doubled in the next 30 years, due to population pressure. In the field of education, too, it is estimated that to provide for the children who will require education in the next 30 years over 3,000 extra schools will have to be constructed.
I am not saying that all this cannot be done, but we must appreciate the enormous strain, not only on our capital resources but also on our labour, merely to catch up with ourselves. That is why I say, although we are more forunate than many other countries, that the problem of the population explosion affects us, too. Do we want our lovely country to be further despoiled? Do we want further pollution, a further avalanche of noise and further stretches of asphalt? Do we want to be spending a great deal of our time simply trying to keep pace with our expansion? Or should we not try to appreciate even more than we have done up to now the importance of the quality of life?

197
The problem in this country is a very serious one, but fortunately there are remedies. One becomes bewildered when one thinks of what this country might have been if our birthrate had remained as it was even in the days when I was born. Infant mortality has declined strikingly in the last hundred years. In 1870 it was 150 per 1,000; in 1890 it was 145 per 1,000; in 1967 it was 18·8 per 1,000, and I believe that it is now 18·5 per 1,000. That means that with the extension of medical knowledge, as well as with better sanitation, better housing and more amenities, we are saving human life. The overall figures of mortality have also declined. In 1870 the figure for males was 23·3 per 1,000, and it is now 11·8 per 1,000; while the figure for females has dropped from 20·8 per 1,000 in 1870 to 10·6 per 1,000 to-day. This is all to the good, but it provides us with an extra problem of how to maintain a decent standard of life. Also, it must be recognised that the size of the average family is such that by the year 2000 there will be a population in this country of something like 70 million.
As I have said, there are remedies, and there have been remedies in the past. Birth control of a technical nature may be relatively modern, but we could still employ the older methods of birth control. We could care less for the aged. We could say that there shall be less, or no, medical treatment for the senile, into which class I would put myself and one or two others who are not here to-night. We could reduce the amount of pensions given to the aged and make it more uncomfortable for them to live, and we could give them less nourishment. At the other end of the scale, we could say that we will not coddle children, and that if there are weak, inadequate, imperfect, malformed children, we should let them die. We could see to it that they no longer had milk to sustain them at school. We could abolish family allowances. We could do everything possible, at both ends of the scale, to those who are not likely to be productive or useful to the community, to see that they rapidly passed away from the earthly stage.
I am sure that no one here would tolerate for a single moment any such ideas. But there are other methods, apart from death, which have been employed in the past. There is the incidence of
198
war, and not necessarily on a world scale. From a purely cynical standpoint, we could say that a few local wars here and there to wipe out a few millions would be extremely beneficial. There are those who claim that we could solve the problem by emigration, and there was a time when that was advanced as the "cure-all". There were the great open spaces of Australia—even though it is mostly sandy desert. Then there is Canada, to which millions have gone from this country and to which millions more could go. But it is estimated that, in order to get the population stabilised, the emigration of something like 300,000 a year for the next 30 years would be required, which is not likely to happen.
There are those who argue that the noblest method of limiting population is by what Malthus called "sexual or moral restraint". That is practised in some parts of the world. In Ireland, the average age for marriage is several years higher than it is in this country, which is one way of limiting the population. They also enlist a large number of people into the priesthood, into nunneries, convents and monasteries where they are celibate, and in that way prevent a much more severe expansion. But I believe that that method is utterly impracticable. Malthus's advice is all very well for those who are not human, but those who are human will ignore it. Therefore one puts that on one side, although the theory is still advanced. I am a great admirer of the late Mahatma Gandhi, but I criticised him in some respects—and I told him so—for he advised moral restraint as the one means by which the population of India could be restricted. Then that very great woman, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, who was Minister of Health, followed in his footsteps and was very mischievous (though not intentionally) in regard to the problem that we are considering.
Finally, my Lords, I come to contraception. If we reject war, if we still exercise compassion for the aged and concern for the young, if we consider that to encourage moral or sexual restraint is not only impracticable but fundamentally unsound, then there is only one method by which the population of the world can be restricted; that is, by contraception. Here we are encouraged by the fact that to-day the mood of this country, of the Establishment and of

199
other lands, too, is strikingly different from what it was not so many years ago.
It is good, for instance, to turn back to the report of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 1958. This is particularly significant because when this Conference spoke it spoke with the backing not only of the Bishops but of the laity and, I am sure, of other elements and components in the Establishment. May I remind your Lordships, and particularly the Episcopal Bench, of what was recorded in 1958?
"The necessity and frequency of children,"
said the Prelates,
"has been laid by God upon the conscience of parents. This planning is a right and important factor in Christian family life".
That is extremely encouraging, particularly because it is a conversion from what the Prelates of 1908 had to say—and I am sure the right reverend Prelates will not mind my reminding the House of this fact to show how enlightenment sometimes comes in the most unexpected ways.
In 1908 the Lambeth Conference of Bishops reported thus:
"This Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all people to discourage artificial means of restriction as demoralising in character and hostile to national welfare."
And in order to support those words, Archbishop Lang, during the same year, said this:
"We must do something more than denounce these practices of birth control. We must make men feel it is better that a large family should be trained in self-denial through the bracing discipline of life than that a small family be reared in ease and comfort."
I am sure he applied that to his own family in his own particular context. I mention this because it is quite characteristic of the attitude of large numbers of eminent people, lay or clerical, at that time, since when there has been this remarkable conversion, which makes me realise again how God does move "in a mysterious way His wonders to perform."
Because of that, my Lords, I think we can take heart at the present time that the problem is not insoluble, in this country or elsewhere. I would therefore say this ere I sit down. Though I am puzzled at the way in which, in the past, so many men of conscientious conviction, of prayer and spiritual aspiration,
200
have been so blind and yet now have awakened, nevertheless within the human race there does gradually proceed this enlightenment. Lest it is thought that I am singling out the Church of England for my observations, may I say that it is not so. Because I am aware, for instance, that John Wesley, founder of the great Methodist Church—which, like the Church of England, has performed remarkably beneficial service, spiritual, mental and sometimes bodily, to mankind—was nevertheless one of (what was it?) nineteen children; and this leads me to wonder why the Methodist Church, because of its spiritual genius and perception, has not long before now, when it was unpopular to say so, announced birth control as a gift of God, as right and proper.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him. I think it is important to reflect how well John Wesley learned the lesson that the noble Lord is endeavouring to produce from the argument. Though he was married, Wesley produced no children whatsoever.
LORD SORENSEN: I am aware of that, my Lords, and I am very glad of the intervention of my noble friend and colleague, whom I very deeply appreciate and love. But I would also say this. If only the Methodist Church, which has performed a great deal of charitable work in a variety of ways, could years ago have initiated birth control clinics; what a tremendous boon it would have been to the world! And even now it is not too late. Why does not the Methodist Church now say, "We will provide centres for birth control and contraceptive advice"? Why does it not now make it part of its programme of social service—inspired, of course, by the love of its brethren?
LORD SOPER: My Lords, may I interrupt again to say that, whatever may be the laggard behaviour of the Episcopal Bench, the Methodist Church has in fact set up such clinics in the last two years.
LORD SORENSEN: In the last two years, my Lords! What a pity it did not do it fifty or sixty years ago instead of leaving it to atheists like Charles Webb, and infidels and heretics, all of whom were denounced at the time (I

201
have plenty of documents to this effect in my possession at home) as filthy wicked people. I do not remember one single minister of any Church openly saying, "This is not so; this can be a Divine gift", as they say to-day. It again makes me realise that the Spirit of God moves in many other ways than ecclesiastical, and I am sure that both my right reverend friends on the Episcopal Bench and the solitary representative of the Methodist Church will agree with me there.
But I will come to my conclusion, with apologies for anything I have said which I hope has not hurt anyone but which arises out of my objective reflections on the wondrous ways in which the human mind becomes enlightened, sometimes in the most unlikely places. What I would suggest (and I have already suggested one way) is that the Christian missionaries themselves, with all their great prestige and their undoubtedly very great work in a variety of ways, should now proceed even more powerfully than they have done in Methodism by providing, as they did two years ago, family planning clinics. Why do they not go out on a big scale into Africa and India, wherever the Methodist Church spreads? Why does not the Anglican Church do this, too? This is one suggestion: that they should preach and teach their converts ways and means by which they can ease their own burdens and the burdens of mankind.
The second thing I would suggest is that we should encourage sterilisation. I am not saying it should be compulsory—it should be entirely voluntary, although there are difficulties even there—but there are still a large number of men and women who beget or conceive children who should not do so and who pass on weak or imperfect progeny. I know, of course, that often it is not so; that sometimes out of strange cohabitation between a man and a woman unusual, splendid children come. But there are many other cases where there is a genetic factor, and there, I suggest, we should positively encourage sterilisation, here and elsewhere, of those who are physically or mentally unfit. I go further: we should encourage it also among those who desire to marry but who do not desire children—and there are women and men of that character, even though only a few. I suggest that they, too, should be encouraged to engage in sterilisation so that they cannot beget
202
or conceive children. I speak as a father of three, two surviving, but I recognise that my three children are more than the average number that should be born if we are to stabilise the population.
The third and last thing I would say is that we ourselves should set an example. After all, I have had three children, and others in this House have had more or fewer. Let us realise that all those who have, say, four or more are setting a bad example to others. It means that if they were all to have the same number of children, the situation in this country, to which I have briefly alluded, would be even more chronic than it is likely to be. I would ask that as a duty, as a solemn religious and ethical duty, we should say to the people of this country, "Restrict your families—it is only fair to others that you should do so—to three at the outside. Do so as a duty to yourself, a duty to the country, a duty to the world." I am sure many would respond.
Little has been said this evening, my Lords, on the more human side of this population problem: the burden on women who have in the past found that maternity, instead of being a glory, as it can be, has become a tyranny. Little has been said of the strain and stress that unwanted pregnancies have imposed upon women, far more than men; for though men can have the financial strain in trying to meet the needs of a growing family, sometimes a nervous strain, it is nevertheless the woman who bears the child. If I may say so as I sit down, I shall never forget in my teens engaging in social service work and going to a house just off Goswell Road and finding six children in one room, one barren room with nothing in the cupboard. The mother—she was still a young woman—was haggard, strained and drawn. I looked at her and thought, "She might be my mother. She is my sister." My Lords, because of that I would ask this House not to forget the human side and to realise that while we are grappling statistically and objectively with the population problem as a whole, in the middle of the problem there is still the human being.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, in opening, I should like to add to those already expressed my wholehearted thanks to

203
the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for initiating this debate. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, this is one of the most important and vital subjects confronting the world to-day. My approach is similar to that of my noble friend Lord Gowrie. I share his knowledge, in a small way, of refugees in Jordan; I share his love of Ireland where I have family connections; and I share the fact that we are so close in age as to meet the same generation problems which so many of us have found fascinating to look at this afternoon. I must confess that I was chilled by the views of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, because they do not coincide with my own; but I was warmed to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Blackett, who said that "cheerfulness kept breaking out". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, will forgive my approach to this subject for I feel that truth is a many-sided jewel and that this subject has many facets.
My chief interests lie in the problems of the arid zone and desert reclamation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his fascinating observations on population control in this country, but I should like to begin by mentioning population control because it is fundamental to the whole subject. I quote the words of Mr. Robert Macnamara at Copenhagen on October 21 last year:
"The population problem will not go away. It will be resolved in one way or another, either by sensible solutions or senseless suffering."
We have dealt at some length with the delicate problems of population control; but I take comfort from the fact that at the beginning of the Development Decade, at the end of 1960, there were only three countries in the world following a positive population control policy. In 1970, at the end of last year, the number had increased to 22. Moreover, the countries involved covered Asia, Africa and Latin America; and 70 per cent. of them were represented in these official programmes. In addition to the official programmes, 10 per cent. of the populations of the countries involved were covered to a limited extent by family planning carried out by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to which reference has been made this afternoon.
My Lords, I feel that progress is being made—admittedly, progress on a much
204
wider field; but surely here is the point to add: the very relevant comment of the same Mr. Macnamara in Copenhagen, when he said in his summary:
"If there were only a 5 per cent. shift from arms to development we would be within sight of the Pearson target for official development assistance. And who among us, familiar with the methods and audits of arms planning, would not admit that such a margin could be provided from convertible waste alone?"
This, from the President of the World Bank, surely is another source of hope. From convertible waste a 5 per cent. margin could be achieved. Imagine the impact that that would make on the statistics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: that at the moment only 35 million dollars are allocated to the world population control programme and that 170 million dollars would make this a viable and practical possibility.
I like to see a problem with hard edges; I find it difficult to conceive the whole without looking at the particular. I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to one country of which I have some knowledge, Egypt, because that country suffers to a marked extent from the population explosion and at the same time has a considerable land shortage. It is possible to cultivate only 4 per cent. of the total area of Egypt. The remaining 96 per cent. is desert or arid zone which is capable of cultivation but which, without the necessary irrigation, at present is not cultivated at all. Clearly, the Aswan High Dam project, the biggest programme ever instituted in Egypt, is going to have an enormous impact on the irrigation.
But I would direct your Lordships' attention to the area West of the Nile where, under the direction of Dr. Helmi, the Director of the General Desert Development Authority of Egypt, which was set up in 1959, a series of large-scale projects are at present under construction. Of course it is only one part of the total approach to the problem in Egypt; but these large, shallow depressions, going from the El Kharga Oasis in the South to the Bahariya Oasis in the North, cover a stretch of over 500 miles. Twenty per cent. of that area—that is to say, a total of over 2½ million acres—is capable of easy cultivation provided that the irrigation is available which it will be very shortly. Here is a

205
country, 4 per cent. of which is at present under cultivation and further development well programmed, combined with which is the beginning of a population control programme, a country where the birth rate is much higher than elsewhere—the statistics show a rate of 25 per 1,000 births, which is appreciably higher than the country mentioned by Lord Blackett. I was grateful to him for mentioning that country, for Egypt is among those countries with astonishing population explosions.
As well as the problem of population, there is the equally difficult problem in desert reclamation of the locust invasions. Locusts have been plaguing Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs. It is the desert locust much more than the red locust or the migratory locust which is especially difficult to track down; and it seems that whenever reclamation works are completed the locust swarms appear. This makes the effort so much less worth while than was originally anticipated.
Luckily, through the United Nations development programme, through F.A.O., control commissions are working in the affected regions. To get on top of the locust problem it is essential that international work be sustained all the time and that teams should be actively searching in very remote regions like, say, the Hoggar Mountains of Algeria or the deserts of Oman to provide simultaneous reports on the migration of desert locusts which is having such deleterious effects on the valiant attempts to raise the green plant in desert zones. It is again a sort of encouragement that an insecticide has been found which will kill locusts. Twenty years ago coping with a ton of them cost £100; to-day the new insecticide can kill a ton of locusts for £2, again a technological advance which I feel is a source of encouragement to us all.
Locusts know no political frontiers, neither does the population explosion, but the frontiers really are the frontiers of human knowledge and its application. In a world crying out for irrigation for the parched land, some epochal schemes, similar in many ways to the Aswan High Dam, and including the Indus irrigation scheme in India, are now being put into shape in Russia. I feel it is of great significance to the world that the Russians
206
announced last year that they are reversing the flow into the White Sea of three mighty rivers and directing them, by a series of canals, to the Caspian and the Arol Seas. One hopes that this will be a cornucopia and not Pandora's Box So often the effect of a scheme, initiated by however expert a group of technicians, turns out to be vastly different from the original concept. Nevertheless, these large rivers are being diverted, and the Caspian, which has fallen seven feet in 20 years, will be replenished. An enormous area, which I understand involves no fewer than 150 million acres of swamp, is to be drained, and approximately 50 million acres in central Russia are to be put under cultivation.
As we examine the world for population growth and desert reclamation there is one enormous sector about which we have no statistics whatsover; that is, the People's Republic of China. It is a matter of enormous regret that we cannot obtain figures of any detail whatsoever about the Gobi Desert or what is going on there—possibly for defence reasons; I do not know. Nevertheless, the fact that the People's Republic is in no way in communication with the rest of the world is to my way of thinking a matter of great regret.
My Lords, in conclusion, for I do not feel that I should keep your Lordships very long, I should like to quote the words of one Englishman which were written nearly 300 years ago. John Evelyn, who was among the founder fathers of our modern forestry, wrote in his famous book Silva, these words:
"For I observe there is no part of husbandry which men commonly fail in, neglect, and have cause to repent of than they did not begin planting betimes. Without which they can expect neither fruit, ornament or delight from their labours."
5.54 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, this is a most timely debate, and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Snow for initiating it and for his speech, which I found very moving. I think of my noble friend as a politician and scientist; but to-day when he was speaking I thought of him as a distinguished novelist. That means that he used both imagination and insight in dealing with his subject.

207
My Lords, gradually people are talking less about the nuclear bomb and more about the population time bomb. There were two articles in the Sunday newspapers this weekend concerned with the population explosion, and both of them were good. One was entitled, "Populate and Perish" and the other, "The Last Word"; both headings an indication of their content and judgment. At this time in our history, a hammering from the mass media, spreading the facts about the accelerating population increase in the world, would be the best kind of propaganda. I am afraid that I differ from both the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—one of whom said that the mass media should not come into this. The facts are truly alarming, as we have heard and as we can read from the writings of experts everywhere. If you are a pessimist, you will interpret them as predictions of the inevitable doom of mankind. If you are an optimist, you will see them as warnings, and hope that man's skill and knowledge will stop the world from being annihilated by numbers of people, so that progress does not really end in disaster. I think I join with my noble friend Lord Blackett in being an irrational optimist.
Last night, my Lords, when watching on television the splashdown of Apollo 14, I was absolutely thrilled by this miracle of bio-engineering; but I could not help wishing that some of the money and brains devoted to this exercise could have been channelled and directed to solving the gigantic problem of an accelerating growth in population too large to be satisfied by the food and natural resources available in the world at present. This is no new problem, and the United Nations and its Specialised Agencies continue to allude to it. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, referred to our experience in the United Nations. I very much liked her speech.
The Human Rights Committee in the General Assembly debates this problem yearly, but during the four years that I was there I could not detect a sense of dynamic urgency, despite the stupendous efforts in respect of birth control by India, Pakistan, Japan and other countries. Their fears and prejudices, large and small, were expressed by the delegates
208
from the developing countries. Some Africans, as has been pointed out, fear that the developed countries wish to limit their populations, as a kind of last colonising hangover. There are the masculine fears about female emanicipation from some Middle East countries; the difficulties of overcoming religious taboos, and even in some cases the lingering myth that large families are evidence of male virility. I found this among the delegates from South American countries.
I have stressed birth control, my Lords, as one major means of curbing overpopulation, though I am quite aware that it is not the only answer or a way to a higher standard of living. For example, when we think of over-crowding it is India that springs to our minds and not Britain, as my noble friend Lord Snow pointed out. It was a shock to me to read, in a trenchant article by Gerald Leach, the scientific correspondent of the Observer, that not only is England the third most crowded country in the world, after Holland and Taiwan, but, as my noble friend said, each one of us consumes ten to twenty times as much of the earth's resources as the average Indian. It is not surprising that neither Governments nor the public can appreciate or face the challenge of over-population, with all its problems.
This is a very questioning age, and a great many questions are being put. Ignorance still remains the greatest danger to progress. We need a continuous presentation and discussion of the facts, and as much information as we can possibly get. This again is where the mass media come in. They could simplify the question and reduce it to this: Will the present rapid population growth help a country's economic and social progress, and will their development efforts provide the food, the schools, the employment, the health facilities and housing for the increasing number of people? At present I think that the general consensus is that the answer is, No.
Now, my Lords, I have the unusual pleasure of congratulating the recent Labour Government and the present Conservative Government. In the Human Rights Committee in the General Assembly, I was in the strong position, when we debated population growth, of not preaching to developing countries

209
what we in Britain did not practise. The developing countries, as has been said, are suspicious that the developed countries wish to limit their populations. I must say here that one of the things on which I disagreed with my noble friend Lord Snow was when he said that there was no leader in the world who could get the trust of the developing countries on this matter. Well, I do not believe that this is the kind of thing that depends upon one leader, however much sex appeal he has. I think it depends on the political will in the country; and it always is the case that somebody turns up to express it.
The Labour Government have a splendid record on grants to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and a very good record in boosting family planning, though I wish they had gone just that one bit further and not left it to the whim and prejudice of local authorities to implement the measures required for family planning. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has pointed out, the right honourable Richard Wood, to his credit, at this time is going to bring up the aid for the fund for Population Activities eventually to £750,000. He has also made an additional grant of £50,000 to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. So we seem to have an extremely enlightened Minister in overseas aid, and I should like to congratulate him warmly. I hope that his example will spread to voluntary organisations so as to attain the target set by the campaign (of which my noble friends Lord Caradon and Lady Tewson are chairman and deputy chairman) which the International Planned Parenthood Federation is going to start on March 31, of £150,000 in one year to give financial help to international family planners.
I should like to make one small comment about the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—a strong speech, with which I very much agree. I agree with the remark he made that women who have no other interests tend to go on having children. I do not go with him the whole way, but I have known this to happen. I should like to turn it round the other way. There is no doubt that women could never have achieved their drive for emancipation if there had not been such a thing as family planning. I know that there are some
210
women—and here I think particularly of African women at the United Nations; beautiful, strong and intelligent, who took a great part in the proceedings—who do not lose any of their beauty even after they have had nine or ten children. But this is rare. If a woman is going to be a whole person and be able to think as she stands at the kitchen sink, there is no doubt that birth control has to play a great part in her life.
6.5 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, we could hardly have a more important question to debate than the topic of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Snow. The people of this country and of what the noble Lord has described as the richer countries have been unwilling until recently to debate this problem in the frank way we have debated it this afternoon, because in the past they have been able to purchase from the world markets the food they were not able to grow themselves, and they have assumed that this would continue. It was only in the aftermath of war that people in the richer countries really felt hunger. I would submit that this may not necessarily go on in the same way indefinitely. Things could be different and changes could come very quickly. Many people in the poorer countries have seemed contented with the wretched diet and conditions which they have known for so long a time, but they may not continue to be so indefinitely, if they learned more about the plenty enjoyed by others, of which I think television will surely make them aware.
We are repeatedly told that increases of population have continued and will continue to outstrip the increases in food production. I sometimes wonder whether that really is so. I wonder whether it need be so. And I was pleased when my noble friend Lord Sandys mentioned forestry in connection with food production and the fertility of the earth. We ought to consider forestry and agriculture as twin parts of the same industry. My noble friend quoted Evelyn, a great man, and I hastily wrote down another quotation from Evelyn, which I think is appropriate—and I only hope that I have got it right. Referring to the planting of trees, he said:
"It is what all might contribute to and with infinite delight as well as profit who seek to

211
emulate their illustrious ancestors and worthily serve their generation."
He ought to have added, "and serve the generations to follow." None the less, it is of interest that in the 17th century Evelyn thought in very similar terms to those in which we are thinking to-day.
Need agricultural production hang behind population increases so markedly? Another problem, which has not yet been mentioned to-day, and just as difficult is this. When agricultural production increases fast, will not the problem of distribution become too difficult? In 1963 it was my privilege to go to the World Food Congress in Washington as a member of the United Kingdom delegation. I want to mention two points which made a great impression on me at that time and which are still clear in my mind. That Congress was partly official and partly unofficial; hence the conclusions were not necessarily very clear-cut, and when we spoke of this question of population seven years ago we were all much more guarded than we are to-day. My papers are 300 miles away and out of reach, owing to the postal strike, so I have not been able to check something of what was said on that occasion which I should like to quote, and once again I must trust to my memory. But I do not think that I shall go far wrong.
I have the clearest recollection of Professor Arnold Toynbee, speaking on the first day to a session of the full Conference. He said to us then, somewhat surprisingly many of the delegates thought, that the root of this whole problem lay within us, mankind: because man, having learned in turn to master so many problems which he found in his way, many of them extremely difficult, had never learned to master himself. That statement was a considerable shock to the Conference We talk freely about this subject to-day, but as the noble Lord, Lord Blackett, said, twenty years ago it was hardly spoken about except in guarded terms; and I suggest that even seven years ago in many circles it was spoken about only in guarded terms. It may be that big families of the Victorian pattern are less common in England and the other rich countries to-day, but they are still common in large areas where food presents the biggest problem: and such families, too, are now living longer. But there is real advance: we can now
212
discuss this problem quite freely—something we could not do only a little time ago.
The second point that I want to make (and this emerged during many repetitive speeches from spokesmen from the developing countries, to which we all had to listen during the fortnight's conference) is that few seemed to think that their first step should be to strengthen their agriculture. There were notable exceptions, but the majority, so far as I could see, thought more of obtaining credit wherever it could be found to develop such projects as international airlines, to which a deal of glamour was attached. Very little was said about the basic simple improvement of agriculture, which is their prime industry and one upon which the whole health and happiness of the vast majority of their people depended. They did not appear to put agriculture in the forefront of their thinking, or at least in the forefront of many of their speeches; and even when they did mention it they thought more in terms of modern machines, which those who have greater knowledge than I have of agriculture in those areas told me few could operate and fewer still would be able to maintain. So I would submit to-day that as a first step the greatest emphasis should be put on improving the agricultural techniques which are understood in the developing countries. This may appear to be moving by very small steps, but yields are often so low in those countries that even the smallest steps up the ladder of improvement can show marked results.
Let us give honour and credit where it is due. I think that in Dr. Boerina, the head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, we have a most remarkable man. The noble Lord, Lord Blackett, said that it is not so long ago that there was little discussion at high level of these topics. But I would mention that the International Conference of Agricultural Economists, founded forty years ago by Mr. Elmhirst, who was also the founder of the Dartington Trust, has been a meeting ground over all these years not only of university professors and economists in the Civil Service but also of interested amateurs, who I think really have been the leaven in the lump. Both from their smaller meetings and from the major conferences a great deal of good has flowed.

213
Lastly, my Lords, I want to make what is almost a political point. Lord Snow's richer countries control the greater area of the more fertile land as well as of other resources. Of these richer countries, I believe it is true that the countries that we describe as of the West rather than a the Eastern bloc control the greater part. We do not appreciate that fact sufficiently. We must indeed use this advantage to its utmost, and be seen to be doing so. We must feed ourselves in a way which reduces the demand on supplies which are available on the world market, even if we cannot actually become exporters—and in a country like Britain we clearly cannot do that. This means that here, just as much as in other countries, a much closer attention must be given to not wasting good agricultural land, one of the most valuable things in any country.
Our developers have an inexhaustible appetite for taking over and burying good land under cement and concrete. We must pay attention even to small things like unnecessarily extravagant verges on the sides of our new main roads. We must guard against extravagance in use of land which all too frequently creeps in. If we in the West did all in our power we should make a contribution not only to the world's food supplies but to world stability and world peace at the same time.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I reassure him about his point on agriculture? I have had access to and read some of the projects that have recently been undertaken by experts. They have all come to the conclusion that there can be no industrial progress without a sound agricultural basis in the country.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I thank the noble Baroness.
6.16 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this is one of the most important debates that has ever taken place in your Lordships' House, because it touches upon the future and the happiness of the population of the whole world. This is a global problem. It is not confined to developing countries or to poor countries; it is affecting others as well. If you take our own country, every day our population is increasing by 800 persons: that
214
is equivalent to a demand for 300 or 400 new houses every day, or a new school two or three times a week, for a new hospital every month, or for a new town of the size of Nottingham every year. This is the problem that we ourselves are facing, and it is a very serious one indeed.
This country is already over-populated, and if this process goes on year after year our condition will gradually become worse and worse. It means a demand upon our total resources, which are not increasing. Our supply of water is already overstrained; we are using it over and over again to meet the needs of the present population. Our supply of land is not sufficient to feed our population. And, despite all the efforts which are being made, it is only too clear that we have approached the limits of fertility: there are already signs that intensive cultivation is beginning to diminish the fertility of our soil. These are the kind of problems which are involved in this population question.
Let us remember also that the economy of the highly developed countries depends upon an enormous use of natural resources, and in particular on enormous use of power: and resources of power are not unlimited. If this is continued and if it extends over the whole world—and every country wants to see itself a great manufacturing country, producing all kinds of conveniences and luxuries for its population—the total demand of the world for power alone is going to be such as to exhaust existing supplies within a very short period. This is an inescapable result of continued increases of population, and it must be faced with resolution and courage. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, has told us something about what our Government have done in their contribution to dealing with the world problem, and a little, a very little, about what they propose to contribute at home. Surely the time has arrived when we have to do something here of a much more positive and constructive nature. Birth control, of course, is practised, and very largely it is aided and assisted by voluntary agencies.
Let us think about how it is that we have come into the situation which is con fronting us. It is not so long ago since the infantile death rate was 10 or 20 times what it is at the present moment. That

215
is what has created the population problem: medical and hygienic science has created it, and the only solution is that medical science shall come to the rescue of the population and help them to control the increase of births. There is no other solution whatsoever. As we already have in this country a maternity and child welfare service, I suggest that the time has arrived when we should consider whether that service should not devote itself systematically—because it is the agency which comes into contact with women when they are expecting or after they have given birth to a child—to cope with this problem, instead of things being dealt with in a haphazard fashion, as at the present moment. The service ought to be made available, through our public Health Service, for anybody who wants birth control facilities to have them without charge, just as every other service in our public Health Service is without charge. It is essential that this problem should be tackled in this way, not only in this country but in other countries as well, for it is a world problem.
Opinion about these matters has changed rapidly. The "taboo" of custom and religion, which prevented the discussion of everything relating to human reproduction, has largely been broken down. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which at one time was totally averse to it—as was the Established Church in this country—has changed its point of view. The discussion there now is not about the principle but merely about the method. Let them go on discussing that; but the principle is accepted. After all, is it not a sin to bring into the world children who cannot be provided for properly? Surely that is the real sin—not taking steps in order to see that that does not happen.
This is not a problem which is concerned with religion at all; it is a problem which is concerned with science. As I have said, scientific knowledge has created it by reducing the death rate, especially the infantile death rate, and only science can provide the remedy. Let us try to do something of a far greater and most positive character to deal with this problem, both in our own country and, so far as we can help to do so, in the rest of the world as well.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It is an important subject and I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, introduced it. I should like to speak mostly on the second part of the noble Lord's Motion, on the supply of food and natural resources. To some extent I should like to follow on from what my noble friends Lord Sandys and Lord Inglewood said. Bad management of land undoubtedly creates a strained land, as was so charmingly illustrated by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Lincoln. I am quite satisfied that bad management created the Sahara and the Gobi deserts, and certainly the dust bowl in America. But once you have created a desert, then you have swamps, dust, sand and disease. Good management, however, can restore the land. It can still be controlled, even if it is desert.
Even in this country, with bad management it is not long before farming land can become so acid that only the poorest types of grass will grow, something which creates almost no feeding value for cattle or sheep. Stability can be restored by planting trees. We are now starting to see the results of this, with the wonderful work which has been carried out by the Forestry Commission. Land can be stabilised to some extent by spreading lime, or such fertiliser, and you can re-form that land for suitable agricultural purposes. My noble friend Lord Sandys referred to Egypt. There is one important factor to remember with regard to irrigation, and that is evaporation. Where there is a rapid evaporation of water, salts which are naturally carried in water are left behind, and the land is quickly poisoned. Therefore the land must have trees planted in it to hold the soil and to hold the water in the ground.
I am quite satisfied that food can be produced for our expanding population. The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, referred to educating adults. How right she is! I have often felt that one of the unfortunate things about our system of education is that although you can learn about almost any subject you like at school, college or university, you are not taught how to live. It is on this point that I am in entire agreement with her. I should like to put forward one

217
suggestion which may help in the development of land. I am quite satisfied that no country in the world has done more in the reclamation of the desert than the State of Israel. Israel has rendered a valuable service to a number of African countries in the establishment of trees and specialised crops to prevent erosion and to preserve water. I feel that Her Majesty's Government could do well to seek the help of the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Government in any programme they may now, or at any future period, have of preventing the rapid spread of such areas as the Sahara Desert.
After all, the Israelis have one great guide to all their undertakings: the Bible. For example, Abraham planted the tamarack trees around his property, something the Israelis are doing to-day. The tamarack tree holds the desert. And Lawrence of Arabia was of the opinion that there was not more water in the Arabian desert when he was there than there was over 2,000 years ago. Experts from Israel successfully established trees in Malta after six other nations had failed. The Israelis, through sheer hard work, have eliminated almost all the deadly diseases which existed in that area before British troops entered Jerusalem at the end of the 1914–18 war. And to-day food is one of Israel's largest exports.
My Lords, Israel is not a wealthy country, but she has set a wonderful example to her neighbours. It is, however, important that the cost of transport never rises so high that food is left wasting away in one area when another area is starving. Once there are trees and food, then, if I may add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, said, I feel that the market towns will develop—A Town Like Alice, if your Lordships ever read that book. A town then creates an economic stability.
6.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords. I must first apologise for not putting my name down to speak, and apologise particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, who has given us the opportunity to debate this problem to-night. I felt impelled to say something. I was so charmed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, whose views accord so closely with my own, because 12 years ago in the Council of
218
Europe my own particular hobbyhorse in this field was the underdeveloped countries. My speech was made for me largely by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. Nevertheless, I started crying in the wilderness 12 years ago on that subject, and I am very glad to hear that somebody has heard something about it anyway.
Something which has not been mentioned to-night as yet is the fact that it is not much good growing a large quantity of food if, when it is stored, it is eaten by insects and rats. This is a problem which has religious implications. There are other difficulties, such as birth control, in all these matters we are discussing. But equally, and side by side with them, I feel that this particular problem must be tackled. There is the cost of insecticides. I find that pyrethrum is a very effective way of keeping the weevil out of grain, and it is grown, or can be grown, in the kind of climate that most underdeveloped countries have.
We should get rid of the bulldozer age mentality and prestige. It is a prestige weapon. All it does is to put 500 chaps out of work. When it has broken down, in about five weeks, it may remain so for about six years until America sends another one. This, I think, does far more harm than good. I have myself built roads, dams and water conservation works using nothing but the native draught animals and native implements. In many of these countries a plough is a wooden peg, but a few years ago one could for a few shillings convert a wooden plough, by putting a share and a mouldboard on it, into a weapon which was nearly as good as our own animal-drawn implements in this country. Not only that, but the local village blacksmith is perfectly capable of mending it and of making new ones. The draught animals are there and the population thoroughly understand how to work them.
The first thing to do, surely, is to tackle the people who are there at this moment and improve their standard of living. While it is perfectly right that we should try to prevent worse from happening in the future, we have a whale-sized problem to consider now. I think that hand methods and animal methods, which are thoroughly understood by the population, although they require directing, form a really important aspect of this problem.

219
In this context, the work done in Israel by the Israelis has been very rightly praised. When it is a question of knowledge that can be applied or of information that can be used, one should get aid of that kind from wherever it can be obtained, free, gratis and for nothing. An enormous amount of extremely valuable work has been done in South Africa and is still being done there. South Africa is not the most popular country to-day, but I do not think that that should enter into our calculations at all. We should examine what has been going on there. The same applies equally to Rhodesia. Because we have certain other problems, we should not cut out information which is readily available, and is very applicable in the kind of conditions we are speaking about.
A very large number of farmers to-day in this country and in Scotland are not only running an overdraft at the bank but also running an overdraft on their land. This point must be realised. One cannot take from the land more than goes into it. The natural recuperation of the land is a slow process. If you work the land too fast, as we are all being compelled to do at the moment, it will come back and bite you. This is what is happening all over the country. These problems are common to us here and they must be considered in the light of developing agriculture overseas. I am convinced, as many others are, that the proper thing to start to develop in a country is agriculture—and no bulldozers.
The question of the Aswan Dam has been mentioned. I do not know how reliable the stories about this are, but certain side effects have been mentioned, and one of them I know to be true. Because the annual floods down the Nile are being stopped or controlled the sardines are deserting the Delta, and the sardine fishery industry there has been practically wiped out. This is an effect which was not contemplated when the Dam was built. Another side effect, I gather, is that the Nile is now full of bilharzia, as snails have come into the river because of upset currents. I am told (I cannot tell your Lordships how authoritative this is) that the Egyptian Fellaheen who were used to getting three crops a year off the fertile delta are now getting only two. So these side effects
220
require watching very carefully before one starts thinking only in terms of enormous projects. They have their place, but I suggest that we should set our sights a little lower and get the foundations right first, before starting to erect a high building on them.
6.40 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I am glad I gave way to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, because he has made a most helpful and constructive speech, from which I think we have all profited. This debate has been an appropriately solemn occasion but, as other noble Lords have indicated, the occasional shafts of humour have been all the more welcome on that account, and perhaps I might say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, that I especially enjoyed her severe rejoinder to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has asked me to apologise for the fact that he has not been able to stay for the winding-up speeches. It was encouraging to know that the Liberation Movement in your Lordships' House did not stop short at the wearing of trousers. Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that to-day my mind went back to the time when she was introduced into another place, and as she was escorted by her two Conservative colleagues Mr. Willie Gallagher shouted out: "Yon's a good lassie in bad company". That is how I have always felt about the noble Baroness.
I want particularly to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Snow, not only for the magnificent speech he made but also for giving us the opportunity of debating a subject of such great importance. I am grateful, too, because in doing so my noble friend has added the great authority that he enjoys in this House, and indeed throughout the English-speaking world, to the warnings that have been given to the world, particularly by Mr. Macnamara in the remarkable speech at Copenhagen to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred, and by U Thant, particularly in his annual report for 1970. To me it is immensely encouraging that these distinguished leaders and all the great international agencies have come to grips with the population problem. It is a problem that I have followed keenly for a long time, indeed since I was first inspired to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr,

221
to whom the noble Baroness earlier referred.
I was fortunate enough in October, and again earlier this month, to discuss the problem with many of those most directly concerned: men like Dr. Kanagaratnam of the World Bank, who is in charge of their population activities, and who has a remarkable record of success behind him in Singapore; also Dr. Rafael Salas, from the Philippines, the director of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, as well as with men like Mr. Gaud, Mr. de Seynes, Mr. Hoffman, and Mr. Narasimham, who have been responsible for creating throughout the world a new climate of opinion in which rational, objective discussion can take place and in which effective action can be taken. As a citizen of the world I am deeply indebted to them, but as a Member of your Lordships' House I must add that they must not be held responsible for anything that I may say in what I hope will be a short speech.
My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies spoke of the food aspects of this Motion, and I should like to add my word of appreciation for everything that has been done in the way of achieving better yields, in the way described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln; improving livestock; coping with locusts, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has described and with mosquitoes and the other pests mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven; improving social services; and cutting mortality rates. We in Britain have a record which may not satisfy us but which nevertheless is one of which we may be proud. And while we speak of being proud of records, may I say to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, how good it was to hear another Balfour speaking up once again in such legitimately praising terms of the people of Israel.
To-night I should like to concentrate almost exclusively on the population aspects of this Motion. I do so with some hesitation because it has so many facets, so many imponderables, so many incalculables; because it involves so many interlocking disciplines; and because it provokes so many and so varied emotions. I propose to deal mainly, if I may, with the world situation, but I want to say that I agree with most noble
222
Lords that it would be much easier to deal with many of the social problems that we have in this country if we ourselves had a population policy, and I think this debate will have been a valuable means of bringing that point of view to the notice of Her Majesty's Government and also to the country as a whole.
One of the difficulties about this problem is that even the facts are not wholly clear or universally reliable, and I say that without casting doubt on any of the statistics that noble Lords have produced in the course of the debate. I do not find it easy to talk in terms of billions, and do not think that billions mean very much to the ordinary man and woman, but if I could put the figures that we have heard to-day in a different way I would say that it means that every year the population of the world is increasing by about 65 million, which is larger than the existing population of the United Kingdom, or the existing population of Western Germany. To put it in a different way again, it means that the world population is going up every day by 175,000, and even since this debate began this afternoon I suppose there are something like 30,000 more mouths to feed in the world. It reminds me of a speech I once heard made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whom we should all have liked to hear in this debate to-day, and no doubt should have done but for his absence abroad. I remember the noble Lord once saying that the increase in the world population was like twice the number of people who attend the Cup Final at Wembley arriving every day without their rations. There can be no more graphic way of putting it than that.
My noble friend referred, very properly, to the wonderful work that Dr. Borlang has done, and I was glad that he went on to draw the conclusion which Dr. Borlang has stressed, namely that the Green Revolution is not enough unless there is a population policy to follow it up. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln spoke of the political problems that were involved, and I must say that I was brought up with a start by what appeared at first to be the view of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, about politics and cultural patterns. For a moment, I could hear Karl Marx spinning in his

223
grave. I think the noble Earl corrected the impression that he had created, but I shall look at the OFFICIAL REPORT with interest to-morrow to try to discover what he was really telling us.
I recently had the opportunity of speaking to Professor Harry Drayton when I was at the University of Guyana. He was the author of an interesting and provocative article which appeared in the New Scientist in October. In that article he argued against those who seem to attribute the poverty and inferior living standards of the peoples of the Third World to their very high rate of population increase and to what he calls an ill-defined population pressure. They—that is, the neo-Malthusians, as he describes them—would, he says, have us accept fertility control as a primary social task and responsibility, and he argues that such a priority is dangerous because it diverts attention from those non-biological socioeconomic and political factors which are, in his view, fundamentally responsible for conditions in the Third World. My own view, speaking as a moderate man, is that Dr. Drayton, for whom I have a great respect, has overstated his case; but what is important is that his views are the views of a highly educated, scientifically qualified Guyanese who speaks for many people in the less developed countries and whose views I think we should be foolish to ignore in a debate like this.
We must not close our eyes to the fact that great political considerations are involved in the problem that we are discussing. When one reflects that about one-fifth of Guyana's labour force are unemployed and that every year 15 per cent. of their national product must be invested simply to maintain the country's present standard of living, it is easier to understand the bitterness and frustration that many of our friends in the Commonwealth are feeling, especially when our doors to them are partly closed and when the possibility of a new wave of protectionism seems to threaten still further their already precarious standard of living.
I think it is right, too, to remind ourselves that vaguely defined development, however well intentioned, and a sympathetic attitude to population control will not automatically, or even necessarily, cure the ills of the developing countries. Carl Eicher, of the Department
224
of Agricultural Economics at the State University of Michigan has put the case into much better perspective than I could hope to do, and dealing with Africa he has written as follows:
"The causes of unemployment and underemployment in African economies encompass a complex set of ecological, social and institutional factors. The important ones are the population explosion, the increasing gap between rural and urban incomes, factor price distortions, rising labour productivity, the urban bias in provision of social services, unbalanced educational expansion, tied aid, political and ethnic barriers to internal and external migration, and ecological constraints."
What Professor Eicher is saying, if I understand him aright, is that fewer people plus more development aid does not necessarily equal a higher standard of living. You need to stop the drift to the tropical slums, as Lord Caradon has called them, of Africa and the Caribbean, and to the getchekondus of Turkey. You need a fair distribution of resources. You must realise that generous capital help in the building of schools may necessitate a quite unattainable level of revenue expenditure. And it is no good spending money on tractors if each tractor means that one man thrives and that ten men are out of work. And I listened with great sympathy to what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, had to say, with his great experience.
One of the most sobering facts in this rather gloomy situation is that every year 15 per cent. of the less developed countries' gross national product goes to service external debts, and that figure is steadily rising. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke of the less developed countries wanting credits. It reminded me that when I read the article on coffee in The Times this morning it prompted in me the thought that if the world price of a primary product rises, the countries which produce it become more creditworthy, and their public external debt tends to increase. And when the price comes down, the income dries up but the debt remains. Another difficult development problem is that food policies which are aimed at achieving self-sufficiency, which sounds a proper and reasonable aim, can have the effect of pushing up the wages of a minority and the prices of the majority. I am sure we need more sensitivity and foresight on the part of the donor countries, and sound administration and realistic planning on the part

225
of the receiving countries. Without these, I do not believe that population control will have much effect.
I do not want to quote statistics tonight, but I think it is right to say that, thanks to the work of demographers and economists, of the I.P.P.F., of our own Overseas Development Institute, of the international agencies and of the many research bodies, we are better equipped to assess the problem than we were ten years ago, and there is an abundance of material showing the progress which has already been made. It was interesting to hear Lord Blackett speaking of the three countries which have stabilised their population.
I am sure that noble Lords will have read with appreciation the recently published United Nations report, to which the noble Baroness referred, on the need for a World Population Institute, and I know that all of us in this House would wish to say how much we should welcome the establishment of the institution here in the United Kingdom and how pleased we are that Her Majesty's Government have taken the initiative in that direction.
It is true, of course, that some of the results of fertility control are very slow to mature. The decline in fertility rates does not make much difference to the size of the labour force in a developing country for almost a generation, but it does have an immediate effect on the number of consumers. As Gunnar Myrdal has pointed out, if there are fewer children there is less need for food, less need for education and less need for medical care; and 20 years from now there will be fewer people in the reproductive age groups than would otherwise he the case. Myrdal has said:
"The change in the age structure of the population is the major reason why a decrease in fertility would make a people less poor. The income per head would increase."
And surely income per head and not total national wealth is the test we must apply. I may say in passing that the gross national product per head in India is probably between £25 and £30 a year; it is £1,054 a year in West Germany; and it is £1,322 a year in Canada.
May I cite Mauritius as an example of a country which has made progress. The population rose by 65 per cent. between 1952 and 1967. It has a population of 1,100 per square mile. Last year one-fifth of the labour force were unemployed,
226
and 45 per cent. of the population is under 15. If the population could have been kept under control in that admirably well governed country, there would be fewer workless, fewer dependants, less demand for food, and less demand for social services. When I was at the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development, I was able to give some small help sumultaneously to L'Action Familiale, which was a Catholic organisation, and to the Mauritius Family Planning Association. The birth rate in Mauritius had dropped from 38·1 in 1964 to 30·4 in 1967 and is, I believe, continuing to decline. Looking back, I wish that Her Majesty's Government had been able at that time to do rather more to help India to follow along the road charted by Archbishop Roberts, S.J., to whom my noble friend Lord Sorensen paid so moving a tribute.
There was one particular point among many in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, with which I agreed and which struck a sympathetic note. The great and welcome improvement in infant mortality rates in so many countries has of course added to the population, but the greater chance of a child's survival may well mean that parents will not think it necessary to have a large number of children in order to ensure that at least one survives until he achieves manhood estate. I was glad to hear other noble Lords express the same view. It is certainly the view of Gunnar Myrdal and also of Mr. Alan Berg.
I am sure that the House has been right to resist the temptation to be too optimistic about getting quick results. When one reflects that family planning has been condemned by Communists and by Catholics, when it has been attacked as a move by the whites against the blacks and by the rich against the poor, it is clear that great obstacles make the road ahead more difficult. Yet in a way it is surprising and encouraging that so much progress has already been made. It is not, I think, without significance that it was a Catholic President, John Kennedy, under whose Presidency the United States Government went ahead with helping the developing countries in planning and research on population policy; and now the United States are in the forefront of the campaign. It seems, too, that the Communist countries are changing their

227
attitude. I only hope that these changes have not come too late.
But even more important—and here I agree so much with the noble Baroness, and with my noble friends on this side of the House—is the need to avoid any suggestion that population control is an alien thing that is being urged from outside upon the countries which we believe will benefit. The initiative, the direction and the execution must come almost entirely from them. Sovereignty and religious and moral susceptibilities must be respected. I liked the way that my noble friend, Lady Llewelyn-Davies put it, about discussing it with the local theologians. I thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln nodded approvingly when she gave that advice. But I am sure that, with or without the advice of the local theologians, advice and skill and practical help must be given generously by those countries like our own which are so much more fortunate than so many others.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I leave just one thought with you? People are poor because they are sick; they are sick because they are hungry; they are hungry because they are poor. With all its complexities, all its obscurities and all its imponderables, the problem is basically a simple one; but it is one that will make tremendous demands on our love, our generosity, our patience, and our understanding if we are to help towards a solution.
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, in once again paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for having initiated this debate. I hope he will feel, from the manner in which everyone has taken part and the attention with which they have addressed themselves to this enormous subject, that it has been worth while. I hope, too, that he will not feel too gloomy at the end of it. At the end of his speech he said that there was a ray of hope.
I believe that this has been an historic debate, and that noble Lords on both sides of the House have not shirked what are the real difficulties. At the same time, we have felt that we are all doing something
228
towards solving the difficulties. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for reminding me of my introduction to another place in 1946. It seems a very long time ago.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: You have not changed.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I understand that your Lordships are not supposed to listen to comments from the Front Bench opposite! My father-in-law, John Buchan, wrote a book called The Gap in the Curtain which some of your Lordships may have read, and which forecast people's future. If the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and I had had a gap in the curtain to look beyond it to the point where we were standing opposite each other in this House, we should not have believed it.
The noble Lord was quite right to point out to us that this debate covers many disciplines, arouses many emotions and has many obstacles, not least that of prejudice, in some of the developing countries, against what the developed countries can do—a kind of suspicion as to why should we do anything about their population. In fact, I often think that it is just as well for us to remember, here as we are, certainly close to Europe if not yet a part of Europe, that those for example who live in Africa would not have drawn the map of the world on Mercato's projection with the Mediterranean and Europe as the centre of the world; they would have drawn it with Africa as the centre of the world. I think that if we can understand this kind of attitude we shall perhaps not be so impatient with some of the things which are said at times to the developing countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said that he was not going to quote many statistics. I am very glad he did not. He reminded me of what has been called the statistical duck. He may recall that it is said that if you shoot at a duck with your first barrel and shoot one yard in front of it, and then with your second barrel shoot one yard behind it, statistically you have in fact shot the duck.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, that I

229
so much enjoyed her speech, perhaps not only because of what she said but because she looked so cheerful—and that rather makes a difference, does it not? She asked me certain definite questions. I quite agree with really everything that she said about the problem of unemployment. As I am sure she knows, the United Kingdom have labour and other advisers in developing countries. There was a conference in Cambridge on the subject of employment which the Overseas Development Department helped to sponsor. The aid programme, because it assists development, does create employment. Nevertheless, ways are being considered in which the employment element of it can be increased. Her Majesty's Government also support I.L.O. on the World Employment Programme for the Second Development Decade, and encourage rural development.
The noble Baroness asked me about the Council of Europe report. While I have had researches made, I have, I am afraid, not been able to discover to which report she was referring. If she will be good enough to let me know afterwards I will certainly write to her. She asked what was the percentage of aid to family planning in the total of overseas aid. It is of course a small percentage. The figures I read out to-day totalled £1 million; but the overseas aid in the same year will be £245 million for all purposes, and will rise in 1974–75 to £340 million. The Prime Minister has said that we will certainly do everything in our power to try to reach 1 per cent. of the gross national product by that time.
If I may say so, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln did a great service to this House when he said:
"We should have a reverence towards land. We should never take out more than we can in fact put in."
He may perhaps be interested to know, as he was discussing the question of the new industrial and agricultural techniques, that the United Nations is going to hold a conference on exactly this subject in Stockholm next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackett, I was delighted to hear, said that cheerfulness keeps breaking through, and I believe that there were many gleams of it throughout this debate. He spoke a great deal, naturally, of his knowledge of India and
230
of her need for fertilisers. The House may like to know that the F.A.O. and the Freedom from Hunger campaign have a fertiliser programme for the benefit of the less-developed countries, and that under that programme the British Government, with the co-operation of British industry, have been supporting pilot schemes in India at a cost to our taxpayers of £40,000 a year for the last three years, and have offered to continue that support to India and to begin supporting new projects of the same kind if they require it.
My noble friend Lord Gowrie spoke of the refugees, as also did my noble friend Lord Sandys. While I have not served, as they have, in Jordan, I was for a time chairman of the United Nations Executive Committee on Refugees, and therefore I know something about the problems of trying to cope with movements of whole populations which are suffering from homelessness, destitution and famine. My noble friend Lord Gowrie spoke of the "acres of middle-age" which are stretching out ahead of him. I have a feeling that if he continues to make speeches as he did to-night he will certainly enlighten everyone else through those middle years of his life. He was of course the one who first of all tackled the vexed question of religious attitudes to population control, and he referred in particular to the Roman Catholics. It is perfectly true that only last year the Pope himself, although he did not speak in favour of population control, spoke in favour of trying to increase the resources for all those who can take part at the banquet of life. This is something which really will have to be very carefully thought about again in the context of family planning. We then had a most interesting discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, about the attitude of the Methodist Church. So far as I could gather from this exchange, this Church is considered to be much more realistic, which was very encouraging.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke of his experience in Egypt. I must say this took me back many years, because I once lived for two and a half years in Egypt and had my first married home there. I therefore knew a little of what he meant when he spoke about the problem of locust control. He may be

231
interested to know that a generation ago the Anti-Locust Research Centre in London was created to research into this problem, and that under the direction of the late Sir Boris Uvarov it studied, and contributed very greatly to, the control of the desert locust in East Africa and in Egypt, among other places. I quite agree with him that this is an extremely important matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke about the importance of the mass media in education on population control, and I would agree with her. In the £6,000 campaign on this subject which is being undertaken in Scotland by the Health Unit of our Department, we are including television as an experiment. She spoke rather as if she was not sure whether she really approved of the great Apollo 14 Moon Mission, although she certainly did, as I did, appreciate the enormous courage of the astronauts and the immense skill of the United States. However, we are always led to believe that there is a great technological fallout from this type of mission. Quite apart from that, like the noble Baroness, I have also been glued to television, whenever I could get near it, to watch the lift-off and the splash-down. I think it is true, is it not, that it is always the destiny of the human race to venture endlessly into the unknown.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness very much for her tribute to my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. He certainly is extraordinarily interested in this subject. I would agree with her, and the noble Baroness who spoke first, that the status of women is one of the most important factors in having successful family planning. In countries where education or the laws of the country have given practical equality of rights to women to allow them to work, and to make their own way in the world, one nearly always finds that there has been a falling birth rate and a very intelligent attitude to what is, above all, a question of personal choice.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood, in particular with his knowledge of forestry, my noble friend Lord Balfour—who, if I may say so, I thought was very courageous in making his second speech after making his maiden speech only
232
yesterday—and my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, spoke on agriculture. It is certainly true that this country gives a priority to aid for agriculture, and thus provides very substantial amounts of capital and technical assistance to a larger number of developing countries. The same policy is widely accepted by other donors—for example, through the World Bank.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, spoke from his experiences as a former Governor of Malta, which has a very heavy population. He seemed to think that we should supply all medical contraceptive appliances, and indeed all advice, quite free upon the National Health Service. It is now possible for local authorities to supply this assistance, and the medical assistance, free for medical cases, and to give free advice to anyone for social reasons; but it has been thought better to ask for a certain payment where the assistance is not for medical reasons. It is left to the individual authorities to decide to what extent they can, and will, also supply the domiciliary services.
My Lords, I promised earlier that I would say something about natural resources—because, after all, they are part of the Motion before your Lordships to-day. I should therefore like to refer to some, such as iron ore, non-ferrous metals and water, which we all realise have to face enormous demands from the world's rapidly increasing population. There have been many surveys, including the recent United Nations review for the new Committee on Natural Resources of ECOSOC, which was cautiously optimistic about the long-term prospects for mineral resources and energy supplies. The Economic and Social Council thought that, of all these resources, fresh water was the major long-term natural resource problem for the world's rapidly increasing population. So far as shortages of key raw materials are concerned, I do not think we should underestimate the possibilities which may arise through future scientific or technical development, to which reference has already been made by several noble Lords. On the other hand, as we advance, particularly in our urban and industrial areas, we leave the most enormous waste behind us.
Before coming to your Lordships' House, I was chairman for two or three

233
years of a water pollution control committee of the British National Export Council of Canada. I learned there the most horrifying facts about pollution, not only in Canada but also, I am afraid, in our own country—in fact, on both sides of the Atlantic. Noble Lords may remember, for instance, that the river at Cleveland, Ohio, is now so polluted that it is the only river in the world which is rated as a fire hazard. It has burst into flames, nearly burning down two bridges, and 100 million dollars is to be spent over the next five years to purify it. It is reckoned that to purify Lake Erie would cost 40 billion dollars. In London, at a cost of some £40 million, we have turned the Thames from a black to a grey river. Only fifteen years ago the masters of foreign ships were complaining that pollution in the Port of London took the paint off their ships. But for those of your Lordships who are fishermen, I would say that fish have now returned to many stretches of the river which they have not inhabited for years.
It is perfectly true that not all developing countries are yet persuaded of the gravity of the problem of population growth in relation to natural resources and food, but it is encouraging that about 40 Governments now have, or support, population policies or programmes. It is perhaps right to say, at the end of this debate, that developed countries have a responsibility to do all they can to help, both through national aid programmes and by contributions to the World Bank and the United Nations. But the developing countries also have a responsibility to consider how best they can make use of the aid which is offered. The British Government are committed to a rising aid programme, which includes substantial contributions to international organisations about which I have already informed your Lordships' House.
I would only add that I feel that the difficulty about expecting people in this country to realise this enormous problem that we have been discussing is that not all of them have the chance to see the thousands sleeping in the streets of
234
Bombay and Calcutta; so it is not so easy to feel this problem at home. Indeed, the great truths of human existence are often not recognised until the evidence is plain to see, for layman as well as for scholar. I think, however, we should be glad that, through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, this House has to-day given a lead on this great subject.
7.24 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, very charmingly the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has been trying to persuade me to be more cheerful. In fact, I have found certain sources of encouragement during this debate, not least her own attitude reflecting the attitude of the Government to this subject. That has been a source of genuine encouragement. Intellectually, though, I cannot change very much the attitude with which I began and which I tried to explain to your Lordships this afternoon. It would be quite dishonest of me to pretend that I can change that very much. In fact, intellectually I am deeply pessimistic. On the other hand, like my noble friend Lord Blackett, with whom I agree on most of these topics, I find a sort of emotional optimism sometimes coming through. That is really my position.
This has been a notable debate, and I am very proud to have had the chance to introduce it. It is the most important subject which your Lordships could possibly debate, and it seems to me (here I must confess that I am prejudiced) that the standard of the speeches has matched the seriousness of the topic. I am most grateful to noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part this afternoon and evening. It seems to me that what they have said has been equal to the gravity of the situation in which we stand. Perhaps some words that we have spoken will get through to Governments or other quarters. If so, we shall have done a little for the cause in which everyone who has spoken believes—the cause of mankind. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE: THE WILBERFORCE REPORT
7.26 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal statement. I am afraid that in reading the Statement earlier this afternoon on the Report of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry into the electricity supply industry dispute, I inadvertently omitted to read the last page. I apologise for the error and, in order that the whole of the Statement may appear on the Record, I wonder if I may have the leave of the House to have the contents of the final page shown in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I Would willingly read the last page, but I suspect that at this time of the night your Lordships would prefer to give me the permission for which I ask.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it is many years since I heard the right honourable Herbert Morrison say to a group of junior Ministers, of which I was one, "If you come clean in the House, the House will unhesitatingly accept your apology". I am quite positive that what the other House will accept we will willingly accept here. I am glad that the noble Lord has decided to do that, and I hope that the full Statement will appear in Hansard, as otherwise the second paragraph of the remarks that I made on his speech would be wholly meaningless and quite nonsensical. I must accept some little part of the blame for the fact that the noble Lord did not read the last part of the Statement, because, as a result of the courtesies which exist between the two Front Benches, I had seen the Statement, and I must admit that I was not carefully following everything that the noble Lord said, as I was engaged in some sort of abstruse arithmetic which I gathered might not have been quite correct. However, I am sure the House will appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and we shall be delighted to see the full Statement in Hansard to-morrow.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  BRISTOL CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  E.E.C.: BRITISH ENTRY AND EFFECT ON TARIFFS
  E.E.C.: BRITISH ENTRY AND EFFECT ON TARIFFS
  AUSTRALIAN ASSISTED MIGRATION SCHEME
  AUSTRALIAN ASSISTED MIGRATION SCHEME