Sitting of 17 February 1971

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

    The Transport Holding Company
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present value of assets owned by the Transport Holding Company; whether he will publish a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT appropriately categorised; and, having divested itself of its holding in Skyways Limited, what further hiving-off operations he proposes to require it to make.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I refer my hon. Friend to the Transport Holding Company's Annual Report and Accounts for 1969 and to my reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 27th January.—[Vol. 810, c. 131–2.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proceeding with the denationalisation of the assets of this undertaking, but will he confirm that his recent statement regarding Thomas Cook & Son represents a precursor in this respect and that it is his ultimate intention to divest himself of all the publicly owned assets in the undertaking named?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. Any legislation dealing with Thomas Cook would comprise also a provision to wind up the Transport Holding Company.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, apart from Thomas Cook and the 38 per cent. holding in the Penarth Dock Company, there is not much left to hive off, and will he
    1810
    say in which lots he proposes to offer Thomas Cook: will it be Thomas Cook, Lunn-Poly and the rest, or will he offer them separately?
    Mr. Peyton: My advice is that legislation is necessary in order to sell Thomas Cook because legislation was introduced originally to create the Transport Holding Company, the duty of which was to hold Thomas Cook. Since then, the Transport Holding Company was unwise enough to acquire Lunn-Poly, which, I am happy to say, can be disposed of without legislation.
    Mr. Crosland: What sort of private company does the right hon. Gentleman expect to purchase these normally profitable hived-off parts of nationalised industry? Will they be such shining examples of private enterprise efficiency as Rolls-Royce, Cammell Laird, Harland and Wolff or Mineral Securities?
    Mr. Peyton: I doubt that that question from the right hon. Gentleman deserves to be taken seriously.

    Rural Transport Services
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now make a statement on his examination of rural transport services, in particular the licensing of private minibus services, with special reference to depletion of routes and services in South Worcestershire.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The rural pilot studies and the examination of the licensing system are making good progress. In the meantime, local authorities already have powers to assist rural services, and where existing operators withdraw there is much greater scope for mini-bus operators and others to apply successfully for licences.
    Sir G. Nabarro: But is not my hon. Friend aware that, because of the straitened state of their finances, many smaller local authorities are not in a position to devote funds to rescuing rural transport? Will he give an assurance that in areas like South Worcestershire, now almost denuded of bus services, he will, through the licensing authorities, encourage the employment of private enterprise mini-buses and any transport

    1811
    of a kind likely to prove mutually rewarding to both passengers and the undertaking?
    Mr. Griffiths: I must tell my hon. Friend that the local authorities of Worcestershire, in financial difficulties though they may be, have agreed to support the rural services of Midland Red to the sum of £28,000. We are reviewing the licensing system to see whether more flexibility for mini-buses, among other things, can be achieved.
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the reports from his two study groups investigating the problems of rural transport in the South of England.
    Mr. Peyton: In the Spring, Sir.
    Mr. Clark: Does the Minister think that when the study groups report, the results for what are esentially rural parts of the country will be applicable to the semi-urban areas of the North and industrial parts of the country, which have increasing transport problems?
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. We might learn something relevant. but the two inquiries are concerned with the rural aspect of the passenger transport problem. I accept that urban areas are by no means free of this exceedingly difficult and obstinate problem.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that when we have the reports we shall have had our third report on rural transport. The first was in 1935. Is not it time that action was taken on the matter and on the broadening of the licensing requirements?
    Mr. Peyton: I should like to wait for the two reports, which I think will be helpful, because circumstances have changed fast, and for the worst, over the past few years. I hope very much that the reports will throw light on the action which should be taken.

    New British Airports (Siting)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the siting of new British airports will be taken into account in the formula ion of regional policy.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a fundamentally different attitude among people in the South-East towards airports from that taken by people in the rest of the country, mainly because the South-East already has access to international airports, and will he look seriously at the site on Severnside which has been discussed as it is the only environmentally suitable site which will be within one hour of Central London by the time that advanced passenger trains are operating in 1978?
    Mr. Walker: We shall give full consideration to all alternatives, but I find that, when an actual airport is likely to come, the attitudes in different parts of the country are strikingly similar.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not a fact that one of the reasons why people living around Heathrow are so hostile to aircraft noise is that the airport is unfortunately situated from the point of view of approach, so that aircraft approaching are compelled to fly over the populated areas of London? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the urgent need to reduce the amount of noise at and around Heathrow, and, whatever he proposes to do, will he make up his mind quickly, preferably in favour of an airport on the coast?
    Mr. Walker: The House will have an opportunity to debate that issue, and thereafter the Government will come to their conclusion.
    Mr. Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people living in the West Country have a substantially different attitude to the siting of a Severn-side airport from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley)?
    Mr. Walker: I thought that that might be a possibility.

    Rail Services (Grants)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now able to make a further statement about grants to Southern Region railways services not extensively used by London commuters, as a result of his general review.
    Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon Friend

    1813
    the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and to what I told the hon. Member on 14th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 111–7.]
    Mr. Huckfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty about some of the other peripheral Southern Region services, because so far he has referred only to the services which are considered to be London commuter services? When will he be in a position to tell the House something more definite about the rest of the Southern Region?
    Mr. Peyton: As soon as I have completed the review, which is quite a long and complicated question.

    Gatwick Station (Hotel)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on British Rail's application to him relating to the construction of an hotel over Gatwick station.
    Mr. Peyton: This application would have involved an extension of the public sector. It was therefore unacceptable. It would also have meant further borrowing from the Exchequer.
    Mr. Huckfield: I am sure that the whole House is very grateful for that even more novel illustration of the new Government's policy, or lack of it. Is not he aware that the British Railways Board is also under an obligation to make the maximum use of its existing economic resources? Is not it therefore detrimental to the finances of British Rail and the interests of the taxpayers as a whole that in this instance it is to be prevented from exercising the full use of its existing resources, and that a private firm will be deliberately allowed to go ahead instead?
    Mr. Peyton: I have no objection to a private firm taking risks with its own money. I have every objection to British Rail doing so if it is compelled for the purpose to borrow from the Exchequer.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in early January conditions at Gatwick Airport were so chaotic that there were queues for lavatories and food, that men and women were lying on the floor—
    Mr. Huckfield: That has nothing to do with the Question.
    Mr. King:—because there were queues for chairs, and that the manager was absent? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend view with suspicion any further applications for facilities for nationalised industries?
    Mr. Peyton: Greatly as I regret the terrible circumstances related by my hon. Friend, they have nothing to do with me.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister's reply to the Question a preliminary to an announcement that he intends to hive off British Transport Hotels Ltd.?
    Mr. Peyton: I have not said so.

    Conservation Areas
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the three counties in England which have designated the most conservation areas and the three counties which have designated the least, or none.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The counties in England which have designated most conservation areas are Kent (84), Hertfordshire (78), and Warwickshire and Essex (each 75). Two counties (North Riding of Yorkshire and Rutland) have designated one each and Norfolk none. The number of areas so far designated does not necessarily represent the overall intentions of the authority, as many have further proposals for designation well advanced.
    Mr. Cooke: While not making too much of those figures at an early stage in the scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep the matter continually under review and perhaps to encourage certain authorities to get on with their work a little quicker?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly. I am very anxious that authorities designate as many conservation areas as possible.

    Durham County (Improvement of the Environment)
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improvement of the

    1815
    environment in the county of Durham; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have made it clear that Durham will receive every encouragement from me with regard to the clearance of derelict land. The county of Durham already has an ambitious list of schemes for area improvement, the redevelopment of town centres, and the clearance of derelict land which I welcome.
    Mr. Armstrong: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities in Durham are very anxious to build on the substantial improvement in the environment that has been achieved in the past five or six years, and that despite the pledges which he has made, loan sanction is now being denied in my area for very worthwhile schemes? Will he give the House an assurance that the percentage improvement in the expenditure on the infrastructure achieved in the past five years will be maintained over the next five years?
    Mr. Walker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I shall be proud of the substantial increase in the clearance of derelict land in Durham in the coming year as compared with previous years.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware that the new financial arrangements contained in the Circular 2/70 concerning the clearance of derelict land is a recipe for delay in that respect, and will he revert to the better system of the previous Government of making direct grants for this purpose? We in County Durham have too much derelict land.
    Mr. Walker: I have made it clear in the House that we shall look into any adverse effects of the general formula of Circular 2/70 with regard to derelict land. We are in consultation with Durham County Council, and I do not think that it will be disappointed.

    Thamesside Area (Ashlone Road Development)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, having regard to the need to protect the amenities of the Thamesside area in the matter of the Ashlone Road
    1816
    development, he will call in all applications for planning permission relating to this site.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will the Minister look again at that answer? Is it not the case that the Thames area has been ruined by over-development and wrong development, by commercial and industrial development? Is it not necessary that if the Thames is to be preserved as an area of amenity, the Government should take some concern about the matter and should not allow doctrinaire belief in private enterprise to override their public duty?
    Mr. Page: Of course the Government are concerned with the development of Thamesside as a very important matter of environment of the London scene. But it does not follow that I must call in and deal with all planning applications affecting Thamesside. This is a job for the responsible local planning authority.

    Planning Blight (Compensation)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals regarding the reform of the law regarding compensation for planning blight.
    Mr. Peter Walker: We are carrying out a comprehensive review of the compensation code, but it is too early to say what changes in the law may be needed. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) on 16th December, I shall make a statement when we have completed our review.—[Vol. 808, c. 1314.]
    Mr. Blaker: While I recognise that the problems are very complex, is my right hon. Friend bearing in mind that every week more people are suffering anxiety and inconvenience, particularly in connection with road-building projects, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the law?
    Mr. Walker: I am very well aware of this situation. Indeed, few constituencies are suffering more from it than my own.
    Mr. Marsh: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with the whole question

    1817
    of planning blight now, why is there so much delay in dealing with the problem of injurious affection, given that the Government inherited clear proposals from the last Government eight months ago in a draft Bill?
    Mr. Walker: I do not consider that the proposals left to us were in any way clear. They did not deal comprehensively with the total problem. If we are to deal with the matter we must apply the same principles over the whole sphere.

    Manchester (Speaker's Forum)
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what application he has received from Manchester City Council for planning approvals in connection with the provision of a site for a speaker's forum in the centre of Manchester.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have not been so approached.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Minister accept that the provision of a site for open-air speakers in the centres of cities is an essential feature of life in many British cities? Will he do what he can to encourage Manchester City Council in this direction, against a background of 49 people having already been arrested in the city for fighting for this basic human right?
    Mr. Page: So far as planning permission is required, it is a matter for the local planning authority, and one with which my right hon. Friend would not wish to interfere.
    Mr. Heffer: Since the Government have decided in the Industrial Relations Bill to restrict the rights of journalists and others to express their opinions about industrial matters, would it not be a good gesture by the Government at least to let local authorities know that there should be speakers' corners in every part of the country?
    Mr. Page: Of course the Government support freedom of speech, but setting aside a particular area is a matter for the local planning authority.

    Rents
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the median rent of council dwellings; and what is the average fair rent determined
    1818
    by rent assessment committees for Greater London, and also for England and Wales as a whole.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): At 31st March, 1969, the average unrebated weekly rent of council dwellings was £2·75 (£2 15s. 0d.) in Greater London and £2·04 (£2 0s. 9d.) in England and Wales as a whole. The average fair rent determined by rent assessment committees in 1970 was £5·90 (£5 18s. 0d.) a week in Greater London and £4·95 (£4 19s. 0d.) in England and wales.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in order to prevent scaremongering by certain people who have particular political axes to grind, it would be prudent if he brought forward as soon as possible the outline of the proposals for rent subsidies for tenants in need?
    Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend is engaged in discussions with the local authority associations. I would point out to him that this comparison gives no useful guidance on how it will apply to the local authority system.
    Mr. Crosland: The House must get this straight. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding of his reply, that the difference between the present unrebated average rent level and the likely unrebated fair rent level will be well over 100 per cent. for most council house tenants?
    Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to my last answer. I said that the comparison gave no useful guidance to rent increases in the public sector because of the large differences in location, type and condition between the two groups of rents.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Has my hon. Friend seen the details of the G.L.C. rent rebate scheme, which is one of the most generous in the country and allows 17,000 tenants to have generous rent rebates, with the likelihood of that number being increased to over 23,000 in the next two years?
    Mr. Channon: I know the details. We are to have rent rebates in both the private and the public sectors on a scale never proposed before.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman give an immediate assurance, in view of his statement, that no proposal will be brought to the House to extend the fair rents scheme until a full study has been made of its likely effect on council house rents?
    Mr. Channon: It would be ridiculous to bring forward a scheme without such a study, and of course it will require legislation.
    Mr. Allason: In view of the concern which will arise from my hon. Friend's reply, will he give the figure for a typical flat corresponding to the typical council house, which would give us a better indication of what the proportional rise might be?
    Mr. Channon: The difficulty in this system so far is that fair rents in dwellings so far assessed are of a different kind from those which exist largely for council house dwellings throughout the country. I note what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot give him an answer now.
    Mr. Crosland: To say that there is "concern" is the understatement of the year. The hon. Gentleman cannot quote figures and then say that they are meaningless. His Department must have some idea of what the average rise in rents is likely to be as a result of fair rents in the council house sector. The hon. Gentleman's reply appeared to suggest it might easily be up to —3 a week. Is this broadly the case or not?
    Mr. Channon: For the second time, the right hon. Gentleman has not listened to my replies. I gave my original reply in response to the form of the Question on the Order Paper. But I am entitled to point out that the comparisons are not valid for the public sector. I answered the Question which I was asked to answer. What the House must also face, as my right hon. Friend pointed out repeatedly on 3rd November and subsequently, is that any increase for the public sector rents will be phased over a period of years.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now state the expected total increases in rent likely to be paid by council house tenants
    1820
    as a result of the policy outlined in New Policy for Public Spending.
    Mr. Amery: Under the reform of housing finance the rents paid by council tenants will depend on the fair rent fixed for their dwellings. But these rents will be reduced by rebates for those tenants who cannot afford the fair rent.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that in New Policy for Public Spending it was stated that the reduction in public expenditure would be between £100 and £200 million a year by comparison with projections on the basis of the existing system? If that sum is not to come from council tenants, from where is it to come?
    Mr. Amery: There will be a saving to the Exchequer by a reduction of subsidy, though much of this will be offset by additional expenditure on rebates and slum clearance.
    Mr. Crosland: Will not two things occur—first, an increase in rents due to saving in subsidies and, secondly, an increase in rents due to going over to the principle of fair rents in the council house sector? Will the Government give some idea of what the average, unrebated fair rent is likely to be?
    Mr. Amery: I hope to make a statement to the House when my discussions with the local authority associations are completed.

    Council House Sales (Instructions to Estate Agents)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to prohibit local authorities from instructing estate agents to effect sales of local authority houses.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): No, Sir. Some local authorities find estate agents useful in selling their houses and I see no reason for depriving them of this assistance.
    Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no local authorities, within the Inner London area at least, where there is obviously great housing need, will embark on a policy of this kind? Is it not sheer lunacy for

    1821
    such authorities to embark on the sale of council houses, having regard to housing needs? It is not adding insult to injury to expect ratepayers to bear the very high commissions which estate agents would demand for the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The use of estate agents very often is more economic than the use of a council's own resources. The burden is not entirely borne by the council or the purchaser. It is usually shared.
    Captain W. Elliot: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is no decrease in the housing stock whether the occupant owns a house or rents it?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who purchases a house, particularly if it is outside council property, very often makes a council house available for someone else.

    Preston By-Pass
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now place in the firm programme the Preston northerly by-pass.
    Mr. Graham Page: Preparatory work has not yet reached the stage at which a firm programming decision can be taken.
    Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economic rate of return on this road would be the highest so far of any major road project in Lancashire and that the reduction in the number of accidents would be very great? Is he therefore treating the project with the urgency that it deserves?
    Mr. Page: I shall press ahead with this road because I believe that it will result in a considerable reduction in the accident rate. The basic features are now being considered. The proposals for the route will be published in the spring. When the work actually starts depends on programming, about which I hope that a decision will be taken about the end of this year.

    Desalination
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the technical lead established by the
    1822
    Atomic Energy Authority and Simon Carves Limited in desalination by a freezing process, he will encourage the establishment of a large-scale experimental desalination plant in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am considering a recommendation from the Water Resources Board for expenditure by the Board of over £1 million for the construction of an experimental plant to test a freeze desalination process. The plant would be commissioned and operated jointly with the Atomic Energy Authority and Simon Engineering Ltd. I expect to give my decision on the Board's recommendation very shortly.
    Sir G. Sinclair: I take some enocuragement from that reply. In deciding how far to back this experiment, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if successful, it could help to call a halt to the progressive inundation of our countryside by reservoirs, could help to avert the water crisis threatened for the South-East in the 1980s, and could make a contribution to the dry coastal areas of the developing countries?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. We face considerable problems in relation to future water resources and the Government will examine every possibility of overcoming them.
    Mr. Denis Howell: What is the economic basis of this proposal from the Water Resources Board in terms of the cost per thousand gallons? No reference was made to this on Second Reading of the Water Resources Bill.
    Mr. Walker: This is a complicated matter. It depends on the total use made, and so on. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further information.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, on existing information, the costs of any desalination programme will render it wildly uneconomic? Will he bring the matter into perspective and say that there is no prospect in the near future of this process resolving our water resources problems?
    Mr. Walker: The costs are high, and it would be wrong to give the impression that the process could solve the problems. Nevertheless it is right to go carefully into

    1823
    the question of future research into possible solutions.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of the considerable success of the co-operation between the Atomic Energy Authority and Weir Westgarth on flash distillation, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the reasons for the present redundancies at Weir Westgarth and give an assurance that, although the costs may be too high for domestic use, the use of these plants abroad makes research in the field still justifiable?
    Mr. Walker: Export potential is obviously a consideration. I should like further notice of the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if this experiment turns out to be viable and successful, it will not be completely handed over to private enterprise but that the Atomic Energy Authority will be allowed to retain an interest?
    Mr. Walker: I think that the idea, if highly successful, will be handed over to Ipswich Council.

    New British Airports (Siting)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in support of the Roskill Commission's recommendation of an inland site for a new national airport.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In addition to the Early Day Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and others, I have received 11 representations in favour of the Commission's recommendation.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in South Kensington and other parts of central London we find the noise nuisance from aircraft travelling overhead to Heathrow well nigh intolerable? Would he take note of the fact that a substantial body of opinion is determined that the new national airport shall not be sited at Cublington?
    Mr. Walker: I take note of my hon. Friend's views on the intolerable noise of South Kensington.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that a third London airport is necessary at all? Has he studied the well-informed article in a recent issue of the Economist, by its aviation correspondent, suggesting that it may not be necessary at this time?
    Mr. Walker: I have studied many articles, all supposedly well-informed and most conflicting on this topic. It is a matter which will be debated in the House and thereafter the Government will reach their decision.
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has given to the choice of an estuary site for a new national airport.
    Mr. Peter Walker: This possibility will be taken into account in the Government's study of the Roskill Commission's Report.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. Friend give most serious and open-minded consideration to the possibility of siting the new national airport on Severnside?
    Mr. Walker: We shall give the most careful consideration to all the possibilities.
    Mr. Allason: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be perfectly possible to put runways at Foulness considerably further away from Kent, thus obviating one of the main objections to Foulness, which is the disturbance to Kent?
    Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's comments.

    Compulsory Purchase (Lists of Properties)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give new directions to local authorities advising them to disregard the recommendations regarding the keeping of five-year lists of properties which may be compulsorily purchased, contained in Circular 54/55 relating to Part III of the Housing Act, 1957.
    Mr. Channon: No, Sir. The advice contained in that circular sought to ensure that intending house purchasers were aware of any proposed slum clearance

    1825
    action of the council likely to affect the property they were interested in. I think that information of this nature is just as necessary in 1971 as in 1955.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that such lists have resulted in considerable hardship to owners, far outweighing any consideration of the protection of prospective purchase, and that very often the first time that owners know that their property is on such a list is when its sale is being negotiated? Will he direct local authorities to curtail these lists as far as possible?
    Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend knows, on a number of occasions local authorities have been urged to give sympathetic consideration to buying in advance from owner-occupiers who have good reason for selling and who would suffer hardship from inability to do so. I should like to consider what she said, but I am advised that her suggestion would cause more hardship than it relieved.
    Mr. Kaufman: will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to link the review of compulsory purchase law with a review of planning blight, as there are many constituents of mine in the Chorlton-on-Medlock area of Manchester who are suffering grave inconvenience, not only from necessary building operations which are taking place next door to where they live, but also because they fear that because of planning blight they will not be able to sell their homes for satisfactory sums and will have to accept a knock-down price from the council on compulsory purchase?
    Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It is not necessary to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion, for the review for which the hon. Gentleman asks is already taking place.

    A40 (Gloucester Road Signs)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many major road signs there are, between London and Gloucester on the A40 which name the city of Gloucester; and how many of these signs are placed at a distance of more than 38 miles from the city of Gloucester.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Gloucester appears on 21 modern signs of which three are more than 38 miles from Gloucester.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is totally inadequate signposting for a capital city of a county? Is he aware that on the same stretch of the A40 between London and Gloucester there are no fewer than 68 signs indicating the city of Cheltenham, which has a smaller population than Gloucester? Would he therefore take immediate steps to end this conspiracy of secrecy as to the whereabouts of Gloucester?
    Mr. Griffiths: While I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to expedite traffic going to any city which was so fortunate as to be represented by my hon. Friend, the fact is that Cheltenham is the first city of traffic importance beyond Oxford and therefore inevitably pre-empts some signs. But that is geography and not some secret malice on the part of my Department.

    Francis Committee (Report)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to improve the position of tenants of furnished accommodation, following his consideration of the report of the Francis Committee.
    Mr. Moneyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to receive the recommendations of the Francis Committee in respect of furnished tenancies.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Francis Committee's report on the working of the Rent Act has been received and will be published as soon as possible. I am now considering what action needs to be taken but I have nothing to say at this stage.
    Mr. Barnes: Would not the Secretary of State agree that there are two improvements which tenants of furnished property desperately need; first, that there should be some security of tenure comparable with that of unfurnished tenancies, except, perhaps, where there is the landlord in the same house; secondly, that they should have the benefits of the rent rebate scheme which the Govern-

    1827
    ment are proposing? Do the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend realise that in the big cities there are many people whose permanent home is a furnished or partly furnished flat and that they need something doing for them?
    Mr. Walker: I appreciate the problems, and when the report is published, hon. Members on both sides of the House will find that it has many constructive suggestions for tackling the problems. It is a complicated report and I ask hon. Members to await its publication and to see what action we take.
    Mr. Marsh: In the light of his answer, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the very detailed account of the report recently appearing in a London evening newspaper, by Mr. Des Wilson, was untrue and gave a misleading picture of the report; and, if it were not untrue, how can he tell the House that we have to wait until the report is published when it is clearly available to the Press?
    Mr. Walker: Mr. Des Wilson was primarily concerned with only one aspect, and mainly with the view of the minority part of the report. The details of the report have not been published in the Press to my knowledge. There is a great deal in it which hon. Members should await.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend abolish furnished rent tribunals and transfer the duty of assessing the rent for furnished property to the existing fair rents system?
    Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's comment, but I ask him to await full publication of the report, which is complicated and detailed. The Government will then issue a full statement of their views.

    Dragon Kerb Road Safety Barrier
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many officials of his Department attended trials of the Dragon Kerb Road Safety Barrier; and when the Road Research Laboratory was consulted regarding an assessment of this barrier.
    Mr. Peyton: One member of my Department has attended trials on two
    1828
    occasions. The Road Research Laboratory has been consulted.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this device was featured in the B.B.C. programme, "Tomorrow's World", that it has not yet failed in tests up to a speed of 55 m.p.h. and that if one hits the barrier at 55 m.p.h., one comes away unscathed, which is more than can be said for most barriers along British motorways?
    Mr. Peyton: I have a great regard for what my hon. Friend says, of course, but I do not believe that this device has yet been subjected to a sufficiently complete range of tests. Before I thought that I was justified in adopting a new device for such a purpose, such tests would certainly be necessary. I must tell my hon. Friend that I know about the film. My Department suggested to the company concerned that it should make it available but did not receive a very helpful response.

    Council House Programme (Birmingham)
    Mr. Julius Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what special action he proposes to take to assist the county borough of Birmingham to maintain its construction of council houses.
    Mr. Channon: Birmingham City Council knows that my right hon. Friend will willingly consider any proposals which it puts to him.
    Mr. Silverman: Specifically, I have in mind that the present cut-back in council house building in Birmingham is due mainly to the shortage of building land. Would the hon. Gentleman therefore expedite his consideration and confirmation of the North Worcestershire compulsory purchase order? More generally, would he bear in mind when he announces his rents policy that if it contains a general reduction in or abolition of the general subsidies for council houses, it will inevitably result in a drastic further reduction of council house building in Birmingham and elsewhere?
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to reach a decision on the compulsory purchase order application very soon. I refer the hon.

    1829
    Gentleman to an earlier answer about housing finance. Negotiations are taking place.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement of his plans to increase the availability of mortgages for houses for owner-occupation built before 1919.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking for the further encouragement of home ownership.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to initiate proposals for the extension of the opportunities for house ownership, especially for newly married young people; and what will be the estimated cost to public funds.
    Mr. Amery: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the City of Bradford some 50,000 houses out of the total housing stock of 102,000 were built before the first world war and that much of the impetus of the House Improvement Scheme will be lost if young couples cannot obtain that sort of property?
    Mr. Amery: I will have my hon. Friend's point very much in mind in the discussions.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is there any truth in all the rumours in the Press about the right hon. Gentleman's ideas for helping young married couples? Can he say how soon he will be making a statement, and whether it will include a reduction in interest charges, which is a large part of the problem?
    Mr. Amery: I hope to make a statement before very long, but I would rather not expatiate at this stage on the different proposals I have been discussing with the building societies and local authorities.
    Mr. Freeson: Is there not a fast way in which the Government could take action in this respect? Most mortgages for old property are derived from local authority sources. Would the Minister consider reviewing the annual allocation
    1830
    from which local authorities can lend money for this purpose and increase it as soon as possible?
    Mr. Amery: I very much hope that in this respect we shall be able to do a great deal better than did the previous Administration.

    Small Firms (Collection of Statistics)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the fact that the building 'and construction industry and the timber trade are characterised by a large number of small units, he will consider the use of sampling techniques to replace the collection of statistics on a universal basis, thereby removing some of the administrative burdens imposed on individual firms.
    Mr. Channon: Sampling techniques are already widely used in the collection of statistics from the construction industry. The Standing Consultative Committee for Statistics of the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries is examining generally the collection of statistics on construction.
    Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister aware that in the context both of the national economy and of regional economies, such as that of the South-West, these industries play a major role, and that any further assistance in reducing the financial overheads arising from the time spent in form-filling will be most welcome and also will provide a stimulus to a more efficient use of resources?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree that there is nothing more ridiculous than filling in forms which are a waste of time. I hope that the report will be speeedily available and will be generally helpful.
    Mr. Maddan: Would my hon. Friend say what statistical professional resources his Department has and does he consider them adequate to cope with the introduction of sampling techniques for many of the records kept by his Department?
    Mr. Channon: I think they are adequate, but if my hon. Friend has a detailed point perhaps he would put down a Question.

    Trunk Road Roundabouts (Warning Signs)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange for words of warning or other similar devices to be placed on the road surfaces of trunk roads on the approaches to roundabouts.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Road markings and traffic signs are already provided.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that in foggy weather some roundabouts are turned quite regularly into battlefields and that this is often caused by the fact that the driver's attention is directed to the road surface rather than to the signs at the side of the road? Will he carry out experiments in those cases where there have been bad accidents in fog to see whether warning signs written on road surfaces would provide a means of reducing the large number of accidents which occur in this way?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is on an important point in regard to foggy weather conditions. I am advised that before most roundabouts the signs on roads which motorists observe change from small white lines to longer ones, thus identifying that a roundabout is nearly ahead. If my hon. Friend has a particular roundabout in mind, I shall be glad to look at the details.

    South Aston Redevelopment (Birmingham)
    Mr. Julius Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision upon the Birmingham County Borough's South Aston Redevelopment Order.
    Mr. Graham Page: The statutory processes will not be completed before March. If there are no further objections, I may be able to announce a decision by Easter.
    Mr. Silverman: I hope the Minister will expedite his consideration because the people in this area are living in intolerable circumstances in the interim period awaiting redevelopment, with some houses which are boarded up and others which are lived in but with vandalism rife. Will the Minister do whatever he can to expedite consideration of this matter?
    Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. This is a very important development area, and I am anxious that we should proceed with it as quickly as possible. In November Birmingham asked for a major modification of the development plan, which was advertised a few days ago, and objectors will have 21 days in which to make representations. We shall proceed as quickly as possible according to the statutory procedures.
    Mr. Chapman: Bearing in mind the tremendous demand and enthusiasm for private housing in this part of Birmingham, would my hon. Friend see that at least 50 per cent. of the houses built will be for owner-occupation?
    Mr. Page: This is a matter for the local planning authority to decide, but it is a principle which we should certainly support.

    Local Authority Rates (Increase)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in rates for 1971–72, on the basis of the initial batch of local authority estimates.
    Mr. Graham Page: None, Sir. A great many rating authorities have still to make their decisions.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there has already been a record number of highest-ever rate increases announced, significantly in the same year as that in which the Government have halved the domestic element of the rate support grant? Will the hon. Gentleman compliment his Tory colleagues in Tory county councils on their sympathetic action in breaking election pledges?
    Mr. Page: Local authorities are faced with substantial increases in wages and other costs, part of which will inevitably fall on the ratepayer, but central Government grants will cover 57½ per cent. of the increase and the domestic ratepayer will be further protected by a 2·8d. increase in domestic rate relief.
    Mr. John Silkin: In view of the Government's change of policy on the domestic rate element and rate support grant, would he not accept the estimate

    1833
    made by the Financial Times that the average increase in domestic rates would be between 12· per cent. and 15 per cent. in 1971–72? Would he not regard that as the deepest and most disastrous form of inflation?
    Mr. Page: This is a purely tentative forecast and there is insufficient information as yet to support it.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to allow expenditure by local authorities on concessionary bus fares for retirement pensioners under the 1968 Transport Act to be eligible for rate support grant.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.
    Mr. Clark: Does the Minister realise that this will cause considerable concern among many smaller authorities? Does he realise that the smaller authorities are not able to introduce concessionary fares because geographically they are away from the centres of communication and therefore the bus fare subsidy has to be greater than in a truly urban area; and that, in addition, for many of the smaller authorities a penny rate will raise only £1,000?
    Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter for local authorities to decide for themselves. They are spending their own money, and they can make the best judgment of the local needs of their own people.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the setting up of the transport authorities, and particularly the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, there is widespread concern that many pensioners who now enjoy concessionary fares might be relieved of the opportunity of using them? In his talks on the future of local government, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that people who now enjoy free or cheap travel—old-age pensioners—retain that privilege?
    Mr. Griffiths: I repeat that it is for local authorities to decide what best to do with their own money for their own people.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that countless thousands
    1834
    of old-age pensioners are being deprived of concessionary fares, to which they are entitled, by the parsimonious attitude of Tory councils throughout the country? Does he not think that it is high time that Whitehall Tories started to talk to town hall Tories to encourage them to give this facility to old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Griffiths: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that we on this side of the House believe that local authorities should make their own judgment about the expenditure of their own money.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While warmly supporting what my hon. Friend has just said, may I ask whether he does not feel that concessionary fares create unfairness between pensioners who can use, or wish to use, public transport and those who do not wish to use, or are unable to use, it? Is not the right course to have proper pensions?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my hon. Friend's last point will be noted by my right hon. Friend who bears responsibility for pensions. I agree with him that one of the objections to the fare concession is that it is totally indiscriminate.

    Passenger Transport Authority (S.E.L.N.E.C.)
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the deficit incurred by the South-East Lancashire North-East Cheshire Passenger Transport Authority during its first year of operations; what deficit was originally forecast for its first year of operations; what are the reasons for the discrepancy; and what deficit has been forecast for the current year of operations.
    Mr. Peyton: These are matters for the S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority and Executive to whom my hon. Friend should direct his inquiries.

    Housing Cost Yardstick
    Mr. James Hillasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the relationship between the housing cost yardstick and the Parker Morris Standards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: The cost yardstick reflects minimum standards based on the

    1835
    Parker Morris Report. The level and structure of the yardstick are under examination in the light of views expressed by the local authority associations.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these two standards pull against and are directly opposed to each other? Often no tender is acceptable and consequently the local authorities must go out to tender again, which could be a reason for the delay in the council housing programme.
    Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a danger that mounting costs can lead to the yardstick hitting standards, as it were, between Parker and Morris. That is why we are looking into the matter.

    Housing Starts
    Mr. James Hillasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of housing starts, both actual and seasonally adjusted for the three months October to December, 1970, inclusive; and what were the comparable figures for the previous three months.
    Mr. Amery: Starts in Great Britain in the fourth quarter of 1970 were 77,600 compared with 88,100 in the third quarter. The seasonally adjusted figures were 83,300 and 85,100 respectively.
    Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me those figures. His reply highlights the importance which we must give to this problem, and I hope that the Francis Report will go at least some way towards solving it.
    Mr. Amery: I share my hon. Friend's hope.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that, quite apart from the Government's ideological dislike for council housing, there is bound to be a further reduction in the number of council houses started when, as has already been announced, he reduces the subsidy?
    Mr. Amery:
    "The present system has led to the existence of a cosseted and privileged class in our society—the council house tenant. These people are jealous of their privileged position—because a council house is a prize hard to come by. … Charge the rich man £1,000 a year rent—that'll sort the problem out".
    Hon. Members: Squalid.
    Mr. Amery: I am quoting the view of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
    Mr. Boyden: On a point of order. Is it not entirely out of order to make quotations at Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not yet heard anything which is out of order from the Minister.
    Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were made in an interview given to the People on 6th February, 1966. Of course I would not dream of going so far myself. I entirely disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, but perhaps it helps to answer the point of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).
    Mr. John Fraser: Is it not the case that the reduction in housing starts has occurred largely in the local authority sector? On Monday the Minister went to my constituency. Will he also go to boroughs like Croydon where a woman has to live in a car because of the cutback in council housing and make sure—[Laughter.] This is not funny: some people live in cars. Will the Minister go to Croydon and other boroughs like it, including Bexley, which is as badly run as the Government, and ensure that local authorities get back to a reasonable level of council house starts to solve the problem? Will he make sure that his fellow Tories in the local authorities get on with the job which they were elected to do?
    Mr. Amery: I am well aware of the situation which the hon. Gentleman has described. It is part of the ghastly heritage we have received from the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have asked the London boroughs to build more council houses. I have asked them to release more land to build houses for sale. I am also asking them to set up more housing advisory centres to help sort out people's problems.

    Selective Employment Tax (Building and Construction)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give an estimate of the amount which the direct labour departments of local

    1837
    authorities engaged in new construction will have to pay in respect of the selective employment tax during the financial year 1970–1971, on the basis of the present rates of the tax; what is the equivalent figure in respect of maintenance workers, prior to the tax being refunded to local authorities; and what are the equivalent figures for private contractors.
    Mr. Channon: I estimate that the figures for the directly employed labour of local authorities are £5 million and £17 million. The corresponding estimates for private contractors are £90 million and £40 million.
    Mr. Allason: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that there is a disparity between the treatment of private enterprise and that of public enterprise in this matter? If so, is he satisfied that it is fair?
    Mr. Chanson: Of course I am not satisfied that it is fair. It is part of the ridiculous operation of this ludicrous tax.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman doing anything about helping the backward areas and gingering them up to carry out their housing responsibilities?
    Mr. Channon: I am not sure what that has to do with the Question. The Question is about selective employment tax, which we on this side of the House are pledged to abolish.

    Central Lancashire New Town
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government policy with regard to the central Lancashire new town.
    Mr. Dan Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now make a statement with regard to the proposal for a new town in Lancashire.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the central Lancashire new town.
    Mr. Peter: I would refer the right hon. Member and hon. Members to the statement which I made to the House on 3rd February.
    Mr. Davidson: I remember that statement well and was able to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on it. However, would he bear in mind that one of the fears which North-East Lancashire has, and had under the previous Government's plans, was that young people would drift away from the area and fall for the allurement of a new town? Therefore, will he favourably consider passing on to his right hon. Friend my plea that at some stage North-East Lancashire should be given full development area status to ensure that new industry goes to it?
    Mr. Walker: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Only last week I agreed witħ local authorities throughout the North-West to commence the preparation of a regional strategy, and I hope that that will help the problem of the North-East Lancashire towns.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what steps the Government will take to see that the central Lancashire town will avoid the ghastly mistakes which were made in the case, for example, of the Skelmersdale New Town and other new towns of that type?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will soon be announcing the members of the Development Corporation, and I believe that they will be seen to be of the calibre and status to provide an excellent new town.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the creation of the new town in Lancashire presents us with an opportunity of creating that social and economic balance which has long been denied in Lancashire, and is there any necessity for private developers and public developers in the architectural sense for the town being at such great variance?
    Mr. Walker: I very much agree. I think that they can work together side by side to provide a very good environment for that part of Lancashire.
    Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable enthusiasm in Lancashire for the plans which he has already announced, and that they are regarded by many people in that area as a considerable improvement on the

    1839
    original ideas for the development of a new town in Lancashire?
    Mr. Walker: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Post Office dispute.
When I reported to the House on Monday, the Post Office and the union were meeting following the Post Office's suggestion that the two sides should meet to discuss the possibility of finding measures to improve efficiency which would enable the Post Office's offer to be increased without adding to costs.
In these discussions, the Post Office tabled a proposal to increase its offer to 9 per cent. in return for a specific commitment by the union to action to increase efficiency.
The union's executive met the same day to consider this improved offer and rejected it, its negotiators having first tabled during the joint meeting a paper which specifically stated that the offer must be increased from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. without any conditions whatsoever.
In its letter of rejection the union proposed that the two sides should have private meetings under the chairmanship of an independent mediator.
The Post Office came to see me yesterday, at its request, to report the position which had been reached. I also thought it right to invite the U.P.W. to see me, so that I could be fully informed of its position and in particular clarify with it the precise meaning of its proposal for a mediator. It explained to me that in its view the mediator would be empowered to attempt concilation but would have no authority to put forward any recommended settlement in the event of the parties failing to agree. At the union's request, I then conveyed to the Post Office the explanation which the union had given me of its conception of the mediator's rôle.
The Post Office representatives then left me in order to consider their decision with their colleagues and, as the House will
1840
know, they announced late last night that they were unable to accept the union's proposal on the ground that they could not see how mediation of the type suggested could resolve the difference on amount and on the question of productivity. The Post Office reiterated its view that arbitration remained the right course for resolving the dispute, but the union has since reaffirmed its refusal to consider arbitration.
In the circumstances, I regret to have to inform the House that the deadlock continues.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unyielding attitude of the Corporation has only succeeded in stiffening the determination of the postal workers to continue their action, and that the country, therefore, now faces an indefinite strike, with increasing dislocation of private and commercial convenience? Is he also aware that Mr. Ryland has made it pretty clear that he is prepared to pay more, if only somebody would tell him to do so. [HON. EMBERS: "Oh."]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is useless for him to continue to say that the union ought to go to arbitration in a situation in which no clear wages policy has been worked out by the new Corporation to take the place of the Civil Service pay principles under which these workers used to be dealt with, and that when the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that other Post Office unions have gone to arbitration he is failing to point out that the union concerned, the Association of Post Office Executives, has made it clear that it has gone to arbitration in a very different situation, where the pay claim was being dealt with on a Civil Service basis, and that the association has made it clear that it supports the Union of Post Office Workers, the postal workers, in refusing to go to arbitration where no clear criteria have yet been laid down?
In view Of this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—in view of this, have not the Government a clear and urgent public duty to break this deadlock by the personal conciliation efforts of the right hon. Gentleman really bringing the two sides together and trying to find a settlement, or by the appointment of an independent mediator, or by setting up a court of inquiry?
Mr. Carr: I think it would be better—I would like to say this to the House—if we did not indulge in questions and comments which involve criticising or praising one side or the other.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady, however, has made some—would the hon. Gentleman like to interrupt me?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. One of my hon. Friends made a statement in the heat of the moment. I do not know whether he meant it. I am wondering whether it is in order for him to repeat it.
Mr. Heffer: I will repeat it. I said the right hon. Gentleman is "a bloody hypocrite".
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw that. It is not a parliamentary expression. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Mr. Heffer: If it is not a parliamentary expression I will withdraw the unparliamentary expression.
Mr. Carr: Since the right hon. Lady has raised these points, I must reply to them to some extent. She chose to criticise the attitude of the employers for being unyielding. The employers have in fact twice increased their offer.
Mr. Mikardo: Do not take sides.
Mr. Carr: The union over the weekend has reduced its claim from 19 per cent.—I think of that order—to 13 per cent. So both sides have not been unyielding, but the gap is still very big, and the union has been at least as unyielding as the Post Office on certain matters—for example, on its attitude to arbitration and on its complete refusal to discuss any increase in the offer with any conditions attached to it whatsoever in relation to productivity; on that the union has been utterly unyielding so far. The right hon. Lady referred to Mr. Ryland being prepared to pay more if anyone would tell him to do so. That is completely incorrect. What Mr. Ryland has said all along is that he and his colleagues do not believe that their existing offer of 8 per cent.—or rather, the total cost of their existing 8 per cent.
1842
offer—can be increased without their having to ask for yet further increases in postal charges which they do not think there ought to be, not only from the public's point of view but from the point of view of their own industry because of the effect any increase might have in causing a decline in their business. He has, however, said all along that, since he was a party to an arbitration agreement, he would be prepared to go to arbitration and abide by it even though it went against him and he had to ask for increased charges. The union will not accept arbitration. I cannot accept the arguments of the right hon. Lady because, if they are valid, why did the union sign the arbitration agreement as recently as last August? Had this been a long-standing arbitration which had been brought with the Post Office from its previous incarnation under different circumstances, there might possibly be something in that, but the union signed the agreement last August in full knowledge of the conditions.
Mr. Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that if there had been a secret ballot before the dispute the strike would never have taken place? Can he tell us whether any machinery exists whereby there could now be a vote on either the original offer of 8 per cent. or the revised offer of 9 per cent. with strings, so that the rank and file voice of the postal workers could be heard?
Mr. Carr: No precise machinery exists for that, although Mr. Jackson has in the past put an offer on ballot to his membership and has spoken of the possibility of doing so on this occasion when he has an offer which he is prepared to recommend. So far there has been no question of it, nor is there any automatic machinery available for balloting the membership on the offer as it stands at the moment.
Mr. Mikardo: If it is inevitably a matter of speculation whether a meeting under an independent mediator might produce progress, is it not nevertheless the case that it could not possibly do any harm? Since anything is preferable to deadlock, will not the right hon. Gentleman suggest to Mr. Ryland that at least it is worth a shot? If it cannot do any harm, it might just do some good.
Mr. Carr: The view of the Post Office, as I understand, is that the discussions have been so long and the gap is so great, not only about the amount but about the attitude to tying anything to productivity, that the Post Office needs the help of somebody who, in addition to conciliating, can make recommendations and decisions. This is part of the gap between the two parties. My services and the services of my Department have been available, are available and will be available.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: In regard to the allegation, for which it appears there is no evidence, that Mr. Ryland would be willing to pay more if somebody would tell him to do so, was not one of the objects of the Act, setting up the Corporation, introduced by the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a member, to enable the Corporation to take its own commercial judgment without Ministers perpetually breathing down its neck?
Mr. Carr: I certainly understood that that was one of the objects of the policy.
Mr. Bidwell: Mr. Ryland may be afraid of getting the sack, as his predecessor did, if he gives way. I am mystified about the rôle of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. Could not he be made redundant and his salary paid to the pool to assist the poor oppressed postal workers?
Mr. Carr: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman feels that question contributes to the solution of this public trouble. Anyone who has met and dealt with Mr. Ryland, as I have done in the last few weeks, could not make that sort of charge against him.
Sir T. Brinton: So that we may get the figures in perspective, will my right hon. Friend remind the House how long ago was the last major settlement of Post Office workers' wages and how much it was?
Mr. Carr: The last major settlement was the one which came into force on 1st January, 1970. The dispute is about the agreement which should have started, and presumably will start, from 1st January, 1971, once it has been agreed. The January, 1970 settlement was, I think, of the order of 12 per cent.
Mr. Heller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being totally hypocritical in suggesting to the House that he is sitting on the fence and not taking sides in this conflict? Have not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government throughout the conflict been behind the Corporation in its endeavours to keep the postmen's wages down? Since the union has no strike fund, is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman and the Corporation are trying to starve the union into submission, and is it not time that he got off the fence and started genuinely using his mediation services to get something done to solve the dispute?
Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. If the attitude of myself and my officials is as the hon. Gentleman has described it, or was thought to be so by the parties concerned, it is surprising that only last night when I stressed to Mr. Jackson and his colleagues that before the Post Office Board made its decision it should be fully aware of what the union meant by its mediation proposal and suggested that the union should meet the Post Office again to make sure that it did understand, Mr. Jackson said that he completely trusted me and would prefer me to convey that understanding. I cannot believe Mr. Jackson would have done that in the presence of six fellow members of his executive if the charge made against me by the hon. Gentleman were true.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Heffer: I withdraw nothing.
Mr. Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), as expressed in the House and elsewhere, could, and no doubt does, have an important influence on the future of the negotiations? Does not my right hon. Friend agree also that this is neither the moment nor the issue to induce mean, cheap party political considerations?
Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it seems to most of us that automatically in all matters on every occasion he takes the employers' point of view? I say to him sincerely, would it not help him greatly in this difficult task if, for once, he would say that he believes

1845
the union is right and the employer is wrong?
Mr. Carr: I do not believe that it is my duty, or that it has been seen as the job of any of my predecessors, to express points of view of that kind, because I do not believe that in this or in any similar matter which comes before me right or wrong is always entirely on one side.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the national interest that all of us in this House, however deeply we may disagree on many matters, should uphold the highest reputation of arbitration, and that unless we all uphold the impartiality of arbitration the long-term interests of the country will be damaged?
Mr. Mikardo: Ask Jack Scamp.
Mr. Carr: My hon. and gallant Friend has made this point before. I believe it is essential that both sides of industry should be prepared—while the normal practice must be to reach agreement by negotiation—on occasions when negotiations cannot succeed, to accept and abide by arbitration. I see no alternative if we are to have a more orderly and peaceful industrial society.
Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman wants this independent assessment—and he knows the feeling of the union about arbitration—why does he not set up an independent court of inquiry and allow the matter to go there? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman wants instead to see the unions go crawling back? While he has kidded or convinced Mr. Jackson, is he aware that that is not the case here, and that he has not convinced this House?
Mr. Carr: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's allegation is the complete opposite of the facts. As to the first part, we had the report of an inquiry recently which spoke very strongly about the failure of the union to keep to its agreement about arbitration. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that within a week, and in view of that, we should not get the same result?
Mr. Orme: A different situation.
Mrs. Castle: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what he proposes to do to end the deadlock?
Hon. Members: Nothing at all.
Mr. Carr: The two sides have been meeting this morning and the last news I had before I came to the House was that they were still meeting. When that meeting is finished I hope to have a full report of the situation. Then I must judge what to do next. I shall do whatever I can and whatever seems possible to obtain a solution.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is it a fact that the Post Office during the course of this dispute has lost revenue in excess of £13 million which, had it not been so lost, would have enabled the Corporation to concede an additional increase of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. to the Post Office workers? Could he tell the House what scale of loss we must reach before the Minister who is politically responsible for this Department decides to intervene?
Mr. Carr: I am not sure what the lion. Member means in the last part of his Question, because he seems to forget that, not through the action of this Government, but through the action of his own Government, this is now an independent Corporation. My right hon. Friend can no doubt be questioned about his powers in relation to that when appropriate, but it is certainly not a matter for me. As to the first part of the question, this is one of the tragedies in a strike, on both sides. On the one hand, the workers involved feel sufficiently strongly to forgo a lot of earnings because they believe it is so important. Equally, the employer is prepared to do likewise, and that is why strikes are such serious matters and why, thank Goodness, they do not normally arise in any official, serious way on this scale. This happens when both sides take deep positions to which, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the situation, they hold very strongly
Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only yesterday the Chancellor reaffirmed that the Wilberforce settlement of 10·9 per cent., taken at its best, was not to be regarded as representing a norm? If the Post Office does go beyond 9 per cent., with a general

1847
settlement of say, 10 per cent., would it not be regarded as a norm to be applied across the whole field and make the inflationary process catastrophic?
Mr. Carr: The Wilberforce inquiry stressed very strongly that the electricity workers were a special case because of their productivity. What matters from the overall economic point of view—and this is what causes some of the difficulty and confusion about figures—for the industry is the addition to the wage costs of the industry. The reason why movement is much more possible in the electricity industry at the moment is because of the ongoing introduction of well-founded incentive bonus schemes. It is possible in that industry for people to add substantially to their personal earnings while making much smaller additions to the overall labour costs of the industry. In the Post Office it is not so easy. This was also the basis of the Post Office negotiations at the weekend. While it could not add to the total amount involved in its previous 8 per cent. offer, it said that it would be prepared to seek ways and means of making that more in individual terms if it could be offset through efficiency which would reduce the total additions to labour costs to what was originally offered.
Mr. Driberg: Is it not significant that the Post Office chose last weekend, at the height of the strike, to release to the Press its long-term plans for wrecking the postal services, including the gradual abolition of all postal deliveries to houses and therefore the complete abolition of all postmen? Is that not an indication of its intention not merely of starving them but of trying to frighten the postmen back to work?
Mr. Carr: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is outside my field of responsibility and I am not able to answer in detail. But I understand that they were not specific plans, they were Press speculations—
Mr. William Hamilton: Inspired leaks.
Mr. Carr: The reports on which the speculations were based were inquiries which have been going on for some time and of which all sides were well aware.
Mr. Driberg: A deliberate leak.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that "arbitration" is an ugly word to the trade union movement because of past experience? Will he now delve into the archives and take guidance from the old Ministry of Labour conciliation machinery, which paid dividends to trade unions and employers alike? Is he aware that this would be acceptable to the postmen and would lead to a successful conclusion, which is what the country is asking for?
Mr. Carr: I take note and do not disagree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to the first part, he must ask himself why, if what he says is true, this union signed this new arbitration agreement as recently as last August.
Several Hon Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 5th MARCH
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Michael Meacher.

Mr. James Hill.

Mr. Dick Leonard.

BILL PRESENTED

  WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY
  Mr. Ifor Davies, supported by Mr. Raymond Gower, Mr. George Thomas,
  Mr. John Morris, Mr. Michael Roberts, Mr. Alec Jones, Mr. Elystan Morgan,
  Mr. Geraint Morgan, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, and Mr. Arthur Probert, presented a Bill to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Wales (including Monmouthshire) towards the expenses of the Welsh National Opera Company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th March; and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of South Wales Ports, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1971.

2. Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1971.

3. Guardianship of Minors Act, 1971.

4. Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1971.

5. Air Corporations Act, 1971.

6. Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Act, 1971.

7. Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Act, 1971.

8. Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1971.

9. Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act, 1971.

10. Glasgow Corporation (Finance &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1971.

11. Paisley Corporation (Cart Navigation) Order Confirmation Act, 1971.

12. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Melton Mowbray and Sheffield) Act, 1971.

13. Amoco (U.K.) Act, 1971.

14. Falmouth Container Terminal Act, 1971.

15. National Trust Act, 1971.

16. Nottingham Corporation Act, 1971.

17. Berkshire County Council Act, 1971.

18. Bristol Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1971.

19. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1971.

20. Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure, 1971 (No. 1).

ADJOURMENT DEBATE
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask your assistance in a matter which has caused me some difficulty. On six occasions over recent weeks, I have applied for an Adjournment debate. Last week, I was successful. I was allotted the Adjournment debate last night. On yesterday's Order Paper there were four separate Bills sponsored by the Government falling to be discussed in the course of the day. I waited throughout the discussion on the first Bill, made certain inquiries about the progress of business, and discovered that we were likely to spend several hours on the other matters. However, the Committee having completed its discussions on the first Bill, the Government, without any warning to me, withdrew without notice the rest of the day's business, whereupon the House adjourned, I not being in my place to open the Adjournment debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] I hear the bawdy cries from the benches opposite asking where I was.
Sir G. Nabarro: Fast asleep.
Mr. Lyon: I was not fast asleep, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Sir G. Nabarro: What was the hon. Gentleman doing?
Mr. Lyon: I was engaged on an operation which is too delicate to discuss.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be drawn by questions from the benches opposite. I hope that he will come to his point of order.
Mr. Lyon: The point of order that I wish to put before you is how I can be protected, this situation having arisen. Am I entitled now to apply for a further Adjournment debate on the same subject, which is of considerable interest to my constituents, or am I debarred from doing so immediately? One has noticed in the past in similar circumstances that Mr. Speaker has exercised a certain indulgence towards an hon. Member in my position. In response to the bawdy cries which came from the benches opposite just now, I say only that were I to be denied the possibility of raising this

1851
matter, which is important to my constituents, I should have to take a different attitude to other matters which might come from the Government in the future.
Mr. Tapsell: Further to that point of order. It will be within the recollection of those right hon. and hon. Members who were present during our Committee discussions last night that the actual circumstances were that after a puerile filibuster lasting nearly two hours in the course of which hon. Members on this side pointed out that the Adjournment debate was being put at risk, my right hon Friend the Leader of the House at the request of the Opposition, undertook to withdraw the remaining business provided that these absurd activities were brought to a conclusion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I am prepared to deal with the matter without further assistance. I have sympathy for the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). Everyone has been caught out at some time or another. I will consider his point and communicate with him.
Mr. Ogden: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th February].
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 86

      INDUSTRIAL ACTION IN SUPPORT OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      4.5 p.m.
      Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I wish to express my opposition to the provisions contained in the Clause. In doing so, I hope that it will be appreciated that Clauses 85, 86 and 87 are inter-related. I shall make every endeavour not to stray into any discussion of the merits of the other two, but I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I find it necessary to refer to them indirectly.
      Clause 86 contains provisions which, if accepted by the Committee, can only result in the deep resentment of all trade unionists. The philosophy has long been accepted amongst trade unionists that they have the right to indicate their support to fellow trade unionists who are engaged in a dispute and that, from time to time, they have also the right to translate their support into action. There have been many instances of it recently.
      As the Clause is drafted at present, it raises a number of points which I hope that the Solicitor-General will clarify. For example, when the word "contemplation" is used in relation to the furtherance of a dispute, I believe that it refers directly to a sympathetic strike or action of any kind which is taken by one group of work people in support of another. As the Clause is drafted, it would deny to trade unionists the ability to give immediate and spontaneous

      1853
      support to colleagues who were engaged in any dispute against an employer.
      Sympathetic action of this kind takes many forms. I have no doubt that from time to time those excellent trade unionists who sit on the benches opposite will have indicated their own support for their fellow trade unionists engaged in industrial disputes, though I will not quote the instances about which I know.
      It is not only important to reserve the right to indicate that support. It is also important to a trade unionist that he should continue to enjoy the right to withdraw his labour on grounds of conscience or loyalty or because he feels that at some later time he may be involved in a similar dispute or even the same dispute.
      When trade unionists take sympathetic action of this kind, they are indicating to those involved in the dispute, especially the employers, that they will not co-operate and perform tasks which normally would be carried out by those already involved in the dispute. In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) referred to an example which perhaps I might pursue. He told the Committee of a case involving toilets, and the placing of a time book on a table outside the toilets in which women employees had to register. Suppose that the male workers in that factory decided to support their female colleagues and told the management that the conditions which had been imposed upon the female employees were intolerable. Suppose, further, that they gave notice that they intended to join the dispute at some time in the future. Would that be regarded as the furtherance of the dispute? Would it be a threatening attitude, would it be aiding, would it he abetting? What classification would be attached to such circumstances? I suggest that in all cases any one of those provisions could be applied.
      Anyone who refused to act in any way detrimental to his colleagues—silence can often be detrimental to a man's colleagues—could be brought within the ambit of furtherance of a dispute, of aiding, or of abetting. No doubt careful perusal of the language of Clause 86 would bring to light many more legitimate charges which could be brought against a man.
      1854
      We have knowledge that there are practices which black certain operations, products, supplies and services because of an industrial dispute. If this is done as hitherto when the Bill is passed—God knows, I pray that it will not be passed—then blacking will be an offence.
      I shall illustrate a hypothetical case. If the long-distance lorry drivers of the Transport and General Workers Union were asked to take messages and mail from point A to point B and any one driver were to say, "No, this would normally go by post; it has not been the custom and practice hitherto to do this and therefore I will not, because I shall be interfering with an industrial dispute", and the employer insists that the change of practice must be accepted, what would happen? If that driver refused, could he individually be accused of an offence? If any of his colleagues in the same area working for the same employer—perhaps even accompanying drivers on their lorries—took action, what would happen? As the Clause is drafted, no doubt there would be a grave potential danger for such persons in terms of being accused of an offence.
      The general unions and the craft unions have different sections. The general unions cover many industrial occupations. If there were any cross-supplies or services which seemed to go over an area in which one section of workers was involved, what would happen if another section of workers belonging to the same union were to take the stance that, under no circumstances, would they make any contribution which was detrimental to their fellow trade unionists? If craftsmen, who take pride in their craft, decide that certain things should not be done, either because of hazard or safety, or other things of which they are justly proud, and demand that certain practices be deplored and discontinued, again no doubt in that setting charges could be made. Many consequential things could overflow into areas of associated and ancillary workers who may respond in this situation by resentment and resistance.
      The words
      "to take or threaten to take"
      are ambiguous. They can mean almost anything. They can be made to fit any situation not specifically dealt with in the Bill. This provision gives a wide range of application to employers when dealing

      1855
      with situations which might emerge, but which, by definition, might be blurred in relation to furtherance of a dispute, aiding or abetting.
      Attitudes of non-co-operation can be made to appear as threatening. Even a discussion to consider informing an employer that the employees will not co-operate could be interpreted as a threat. If a number of people get together and draft a statement which they have duplicated and circulated to their colleagues, a similar situation would arise.
      What does "aiding" mean? What does "abetting" mean? What does "financing" mean? It would appear that by a personal or corporate contribution, by finance or by support, aiding, abetting or financing could be brought into play. Even a meeting called to discuss an industrial dispute and a decission to make a collection to send to some special fund to alleviate hardship could come under aiding, abetting or financing. I have no doubt that with the versatility of those engaged in the legal profession, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, even procuring might eventually appear in the charge—[Interruption.] I make this point quite sincerely. I hope that this will be taken on board and looked at very carefully.
      4.15 p.m.
      Any direct or indirect support or any observations intended perhaps to be advisory could be caught by Clause 86. Even Members of Parliament who might be asked to attend a strike meeting in relation to the Post Office workers, if they advise that under the circumstances, because of statements made from both sides—[Interruption.] I will develop this further, because I think that I am right.
      Clause 86 refers to "aiding" and Clause 85 refers to an industrial dispute, but Clause 86 is not clarified. I think that it has been deliberately framed in that way. In Clause 87 reference is made to "section 86(2)", which can catch within the net, if so desired, those who attend an industrial dispute who are not members of the union or are not involved in the industry or trade. In certain circumstances, it could be said that they contributed both financially and in terms of advice. Members of Parliament could be placed in that situation. If the Bill
      1856
      were applicable now, no doubt I could be held to have been in contempt of it last Monday when I attended a meeting of the Post Office workers.
      Many points emerge under these headings. If I were to write for any trade union journal—at the moment I am the Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the Transport and General Workers Union—or to make public comment which was printed and circulated in the union journal—after listening to some of the exchanges today, I might be tempted to make a categoric statement and give advice to the postmen to take a certain course of action—I should be in contravention of Clause 86.
      The Bill is stifling freedom. It is depriving trade unionists of the one asset which they prize above all others—namely, that in certain circumstances and according to the needs of the situation they can go to the aid of their colleagues. Refusal to act under such circumstances might bring a wealth of attribution at some later date, particularly if they are members of the same trade union.
      I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General in his legal capacity from time to time would feel obliged, though not necessarily in absolute agreement, to render support, oral or in any other form, to some of his colleagues in the legal profession. It is not so long ago that I read criticism of one of my right hon. and learned Friends in relation to a case before a court. I noticed that a right hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side of the Chamber immediately sprang to the defence of his professional colleagues and said that everything that was done was perfectly and rightly done. But under the Clause, if any trade unionists were to so print and proclaim, there is no doubt that there could be charges. There would not always be these charges, but it would leave the opportunity for them to be made. That would be to the detriment of industrial relations and, at the end of the day, we would not contribute one whit to understanding but would build up a resentment from which there would be no escape at any time.
      The phrase "short of a strike" can mean anything. Either one comes under the category of subsection 2(a), or the rest of it comes under subsection 2(b). This is an all-embracing Bill, trying to create for the first time an offence for

      1857
      anybody acting in any way, or purporting to act in any way, in support of any colleague in any situation of industrial dispute. It would go further than a denial of freedom. It would make virtual prisoners of trade unionists in certain industrial circumstances. Again, it will not always happen, but the opportunity will be there. The Clause tries to take away the right of free assembly, freedom of action and freedom of objective support by whatever means are used, by language, literature, radio, television or other media.
      Concerted action under Clause 86(2)(b) can be a problem. If I believed that goods, services or supplies from an industry in which there is an industrial dispute should not be purchased or supported by myself, my friends, my relatives, or my colleagues in the House, and I were to join with them and plan a campaign in which we would indicate our resistance to the purchase of such goods or services, we should be in contravention of the Clause.
      I am not worried that an answer could be given today that what I have suggested could happen would be far from the realities. I am still concerned that the Bill will be the basis for case law, which has a peculiar way of turning in opposite directions. I call in aid the Gaming Act, 1963, to support that proposition. No one on either side of the Committee would support some of the case law which flows from that.
      The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) referred yesterday to the Liverpool dock situation last year and the year before. I wish to correct some misimpressions and misunderstandings which might have flowed from what he said. The port employers and the National Port Employers Association met the trade unions concerned. After intensive discussions, the port employers suggested that their offer was a reasonable basis on which recommendations could be made. The leadership of the negotiating team accepted that it was an appropriate time to convey that offer to those working in the dock system. They did not come to an agreement. They said, "All right, we will take the offer back". They did so.
      Once the operatives in the dock system heard the recommendations, they rejected them. When I say "they", they are the
      1858
      trade union. It is not a leader or a single person. Each member is the trade union and corporately he forms it. They said to their servant, the leader who represented them, "This offer is not good enough. Please go back and tell the Employers Association that we reject it." Strange to relate, when that was done a better offer was immediately made and was accepted within 24 hours. But a long time had elapsed with consultations, taking the offer back to the men and with public meetings so that the recommendation could be explained in detail. The decision was from the members. I hope that we can discount that situation as enumerated by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
      Clauses 86, 85 and 87 are intended for one purpose only. There are many aspects of that purpose. I have briefly indicated a few. They are meant to destroy the solidarity and unity of the trade unions. They are meant to divide and to rule. Anyone who says different has not read Clause 86.
      Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Sutton): When I entered the House of Commons I did not expect to contribute to a debate on industrial relations. But for two years I was responsible for probably one of the largest industries run by this or any Government—the Royal Dockyards. Week by week I would chair meetings of the Whitley Council, and discuss industrial problems in one of the better environments for discussing them which exist in this country. Much criticised at times, the Whitley system still has a genuine method of consultation.
      We are discussing a fundamental principle, for lines 4 and 5 of the Clause go right to the root of much that we on this side of the Committee find abhorrent in this legislation. If one went outside the House of Commons, one would find on a superficial questioning that quite a number of people would say that we should ban sympathy strikes. I do not claim that sympathy strikes are very popular. But those people do not face up to the logic of the principle which is under attack, which is the principle of collectivism, the principle of people being able to join together freely to exert pressure for their rights.
      We have seen that principle attacked through the closed shop. We have seen it now attacked in some firms, as I hope

      1859
      I shall be able to illustrate. The Government are attacking the only way in which some trade unionists can protest effectively.
      The biggest Royal Dockyard is in my constituency, and there are three other major dockyards. It is not clear to me whether, if, which I hope will not arise, strike action was taken in Devonport Dockyard, under the Clause anybody in the three other dockyards would be prohibited from taking any other action.
      Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth): In this hypothetical case, is it an official or an unofficial strike?
      Dr. Owen: That does not make any difference. The hon. Gentleman should know that it makes no difference. If we were dealing with sympathy action, unofficial strikes, at least a case could be made. Whether I agree with that or not I do not intend to go into. But certainly the most serious thing is that this is a threat of an official strike. If the dockyards went on strike, it would probably be an official strike. With this industry I had two pressures on me. One was when I was the employer negotiating with the unions, on productivity deals and union pay rates; and the other was an input from my constituents who were most affected.
      4.30 p.m.
      In those circumstances, if the right to take sympathetic action in Rosyth, Portsmouth and Chatham is removed, the workload could be rearranged and strikes could be broken simply by sending ships which needed repair to a different area. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General will give us a clear answer as to whether workers are affected if a strike is taking place in the same industry but in a different part of the country. The logic would seem to be that there cannot be sympathy strikes within the same industry and under the same employer.
      The next case to which I want to draw attention is the strike which has been taking place at the Fine Tubes factory in my constituency. This must be one of the longest strikes on record in Britain. I hope that I can illustrate why in this instance the refusal to allow sympathy action could be devastating to the power of the unions negotiating in this circumstance. I shall not go too deeply into
      1860
      the merits of the strike, but the Committee should know the sequence of events.
      One of the problems in the strike is that we have not been able to get the two sides to discuss at all. The management of Fine Tubes has resolutely refused to discuss the situation with the strikers. Few people will deny that this is probably never defensible. There are always two sides to any dispute and it is important that management should listen to the other side.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): What about the D.E.P.?
      Dr. Owen: I will come to the role of the D.E.P. in this matter, because there are certain major illogicalities about the Department's position.
      The situation goes back to 9th December, 1969, when negotiations started in the Fine Tubes factory for a substantial pay rise. These were concluded—I think I had better say "terminated"—on 3rd June in a total failure. I give credit to the management, but that it fulfilled the York agreement, but this was common at that time throughout the country. Many manufacturers, to retain any degree of parity, were going well above that Agreement; and I do not think that it was ever disputed that the unions had a formidable case at that time for a greater rise than was offered.
      Anyhow, on 15th June, 1970, in the midst of the election, 172 men and women withdrew their labour at 2.30 p.m. Soon after this the strike was made official by both the A.E.F. and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
      Next in the sequence of events an ultimatum was sent to the 172 strikers on 30th June, 1970 to return to work the next day or be sacked. They did not return to work; and in consequence they were sacked. The Department of Employment and Productivity has taken the view that these people were legally sacked—that the employers acted properly thereafter in that they paid sickness and holiday pay; so these people were considered to be sacked.
      Then we came to the question whether in this case the Department of Employment and Productivity was to offer the facilities of the Department to fill the gap left by the 172 people who had been sacked. This is a very serious issue. The

      1861
      Department has used its facilities to fill these vacancies.
      The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be so good as to show me exactly how he is relating this to the Clause and keep on relating it to the Clause as he develops his argument?
      Dr. Owen: My case is that at present throughout the country people are involved in sympathy action with the Fine Tube strikers and this is probably the most classic case of factory workers being involved in sympathy action with their fellow trade unionists up and down the country. In fairness to the Committee I thought that I should give the background before dealing with what sympathy action has been taken, how all this affects the Department of Employment and Productivity, and how this affects crucially the unions' bargaining position if the power to take sympathy strikes is withdrawn.
      With respect to you, Sir Robert, I think that this is relevant to the whole question. There is a terrible tendency to talk in generalities. We are dealing with a detailed situation in a small factory where an employer has sacked people, where people are on strike, and where sympathy action is being taken by their fellow workers throughout the country. If the Bill becomes law in the summer, that strike will be seriously affected.
      The Chairman: I appreciated all that. At the same time the hon. Gentleman must relate what he says to the terms of the Clause, otherwise we shall be having a broad debate and lose sight of the Clause altogether.
      Dr. Owen: I respect your Ruling, Sir Robert, and I will do my best to comply with it.
      There having been this sequence of events, the Fine Tube strikers were faced with the problem that they could exert influence only away from Plymouth. As the Department of Employment and Productivity had used its facilities and as Plymouth is an area where there is relatively high unemployment, it was not difficult to fill the vacancies; so the factory went on to production. Yet the men went on strike. As this was an official strike, they used their facilities—
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I cannot call this case to mind, because obviously there are many strikes. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what the strike was about?
      Dr. Owen: I have tried to tell the Committee about that, and it raises the point that the Chair has raised. It is important to give the facts. The strike is about wages. I have been in fairly continual consultation with the Minister of State, Department of Employment. I am one of the few people who can speak to both unions and management, and I have tried not to exacerbate the position. I have tried to get them round the consultation table. The hon. Gentleman will find that his colleague at the Department knows the facts of the situation. I do not think that there is any dispute—I will gladly withdraw what I have said if it is found that I am wrong—about the fact that the Department has used its facilities. It sent inspectors in to find whether there had been any contravention of the law. It used its facilities. In consequence, the factory is producing.
      The trade unionists felt that the only way in which they could genuinely push their claim in the circumstances was to black work coming from the Fine Tubes Factory. It is a tribute to the trade union movement that it has been successful in various parts of the country in ensuring that this very delicate tubing did not go out of the factory and was not accepted in other areas. There is argument as to the effectiveness of the blacking action, but it took place and is continuing to take place. Further, those who are still on strike maintain that it is vital in their interests.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Will the hon. Gentleman make clear how this can arise on the Clause? He has just told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the strike was about wages and was, therefore, a perfectly ordinary, normal, fair subject of strike action. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way seeks to restrain the calling of a strike for that purpose. So the original strike is not itself unfair. I am trying to find out how any strikes called in support of it are said to be caught by the Clause.
      Dr. Owen: The Clause contains these words:
      "in doing so is to aid and abet another person in doing".
      The key to this Clause—it goes on into Clause 87—is a ban on sympathetic action.
      Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry): The hon. Gentleman does not read on far enough. Later the Clause says that the original person must have been doing something which was "an unfair industrial practice". The original breach from which this arose must have been an unfair industrial practice.
      Dr. Owen: If this is the interpretation of the Clause, some of our complaints can go.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Dr. Owen: Let us listen to the argument first. If I understand the argument, the hon. Gentleman argues that sympathetic action is banned only if the original strike was unfair. So sympathetic action can be taken if a strike is judged not to be unfair. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be straightforward about this. In June, when the Bill becomes law, if the workers at Fine Tubes are still taking strike action, and sympathetic strike action is continuing, with the blacking of work coming out of Fine Tubes, that will not be affected by what I have understood the Bill to mean as regards sympathetic action. Is that right?
      The Solicitor-General: It is most important that this point should be clearly understood. Clause 86 is about industrial action in support of an unfair industrial practice. If the primary strike, to put it in that way, in other words, the Fine Tubes strike, is a fair matter and not one which is in any way restrained or curtailed by the Bill, secondary or sympathetic strike action in support of that fair primary dispute is not in any way restricted.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn): Could the hon. and learned Gentleman help a laywoman on this? It is an immensely complicated Bill. Under Clause 86, is it an unfair industrial practice to aid and abet sympathetic action which is itself an unfair industrial practice?
      The Solicitor-General: I am intervening to try to help the Committee on the scope of this Clause. If dockyards help one another by switching work from one yard to another, they are all either involved in the same primary dispute under Clause 87 or they are taking supporting action under Clause 87 so that strikes against such work-switched dockyards would also not be unfair under Clause 87. But in the context of Clause 86, if the primary strike is fair, to use borrowed strength in support of sympathetic action remains equally fair.
      Dr. Owen: This elucidation helps me so long as the Solicitor-General will not take a different position on Clause 87. However, I remain anxious, because of our difficulty in having to select a specific Clause for debate. I felt that the general principle of banning sympathetic action outright was in issue on Clause 86. I shall listen to the debate with interest, but from the words of the SolicitorGeneral—this is an important principle for the strikers to whom I have referred, and I am glad to have brought it out under Clause 86—I seem to understand that, if their strike is not considered to be an unfair strike, that is, it is considered to be a fair practice, and it is an official strike, if they can persuade their fellow trade unionists to take sympathetic action that will not be banned under either Clause 86 or Clause 87.
      Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): Could I intervene on exactly this point? Under Clause 87(1)(a) and (b) it will be possible for people who have been urged to break a contract to be sued—for the strikers to be sued—for any action which has been taken, and the words "unfair industrial practice" are dropped from Clause 87 whereas they appear in Clause 86.
      Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That had been my understanding of Clauses 86 and 87, but it now seems that the Solicitor-General is giving a different interpretation. I am sure that he wishes to help the Committee, and I think that most of us on this side would welcome his new interpretation. If it is not enough, it is certainly a chink in the armour. Perhaps he would kindly give an assurance that Clauses 86 and 87 run together.
      The Solicitor-General: I hope that I shall be thought to be doing my best to help the Committee in interpreting the Clauses, and I want there to be no misunderstanding about this. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has raised a question about Clause 87. Clause 87 imposes a specific narrow restriction on secondary strike action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It can be debated separately from Clause 86. Clause 87 is directed at the inducing of strike action intended to procure breach of specific commercial contracts, other than contracts of employment, if these contracts are being broken by people who are innocent of and extraneous to the original dispute.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: Yes, secondary action.
      The Solicitor-General: Secondary action, but only if it is taken against someone who is not a party to the original dispute, who is innocent of it, and who has taken no action to support the primary employer. The dockyard point, therefore, is covered, for two reasons, because every dockyard, if it takes switched work, is involved in supporting action, quite apart from the fact that it may well be a party under the same management.
      In Clause 86, however, which is what the Committee is now debating, the intention is limited to supporting secondary sympathetic strikes which are in support of action which is itself unfair. It is no wider than that.
      Dr. Owen: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is helping me somewhat on the dockyard question, but I am still uncertain about Fine Tubes. I see a different issue of principle here. One recognises that the Atomic Energy Authority, one of the factories concerned with blacked work, and parts of the aircraft industry at Bristol similarly affected, are not themselves deeply involved, but the workers there are involved because they are members of the A.E.F. and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
      If those workers freely and democratically—the Solicitor-General may feel it necessary to impose a procedure to satisfy himself that the decision is taken freely and democratically—take sympathetic action on the basis of collectivism, on the
      1866
      basis of union solidarity, what will the position be?
      When the situation was considered by the Donovan Commission, it referred to the judgment of Lord Herschell in 1898 to the effect that the right of anyone to pursue his trade or employment without "molestation" or "obstruction" is a branch of the wider right of anyone to do any lawful act he chooses without molestation or obstruction, and he could not, therefore, entertain the proposition that an act not otherwise wrongful becomes so if it interferes with another's trade or employment.
      As I understand lines 4 and 5 of Clause 86, it is in direct contravention of Lord Herschell's judgment in 1898. The Solicitor-General implied that the limitations which he puts on sympathetic action in Clause 87 are narrow and specific. We shall listen with interest. I realise, Sir Robert, that you would not wish us to go into Clause 87 now, although I feel that this puts us in some difficulty because of its relationship with Clause 86.
      Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham): With reference to the Fine Tubes question and not other matters, it seems to me that the Solicitor-General is saying that there is a narrow contradiction between the two Clauses. By his comment, he acknowledges that there is a contradiction there on this narrow point. I do not agree—I imagine that my hon. Friends will take the same view and I consider that there is a much wider contradiction, but at the moment we have the admission from the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a narrow contradiction between the two Clauses.
      Dr. Owen: What concerns me is the way these things work out on the ground, how they work in Fine Tubes, for example. There is a tendency for us here to legislate on principle and not to follow the logic down to how people are affected on the ground. I take again the case of Fine Tubes. A man has been on strike. A man has been encouraged to help by sympathetic action. Ever since the strike took place, there has been a test case about whether these workers, because they were sacked, were eligible for unemployment benefit. This has been consistently refused. It has been refused even to a man in my constituency who has given up strike pay voluntarily and

      1867
      taken the opportunity to undergo an electrical course. He has been refused unemployment benefit, and, with all the commitments which he has, he now has to bring up a family on £9·05 a week. Again, the Department of Employment and Productivity has intervened decisively on the side of the employer, as the Government now threaten to do in banning sympathetic action.
      I return to the general principle. It is small factories that are most affected by any ban on sympathetic action. The labour force can be made up that much more easily, as has been done in Fine Tubes. If a factory has done that and is getting its work out, the only influence the unions can bring to bear on the management is sympathetic action at the outlet.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: In fairness to the Department of Employment, I should point out that it must interpret the law as it is now.
      Dr. Owen: If the Department is interpreting the law in the narrow sense of saying that men are on strike and therefore cannot have unemployment benefit, it cannot have it both ways, and it should not give the facilities of the Department to the management to obtain labour. What I am upset about is the illogicality of the application of the existing law. The Department is putting people involved in a serious strike that has gone on since June in the position of being threatened by not having the ability to take sympathetic action. Yet as I understand it the Solicitor-General now says that it is all right for them to take sympathetic action in the circumstances.
      Mr. McNamara: I listened with great interest to what the Solicitor-General said. But the important thing in the Clause is the phrase
      "anything which by virtue of this Act is an unfair industrial practice".
      It then goes on to subsection (2). In Clause 87 we have the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) raised, which drags the Clause into Clause 86. The narrow point that the Solicitor-General made is not covered because Clause 87 covers Clause 86 precisely.
      Dr. Owen: That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. I realise that this poses a difficulty for the Chair, but we cannot debate the principle embraced in Clause 86 without being cognisant of the small print which comes afterwards, and which so often in the Bill is the most important part.
      Mr. Gower: On a point of order. Surely there is a clear distinction between the two Clauses. I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Clause 86 is based on a strike which is originally fair, which is not an unfair industrial practice. That is not the case with Clause 87.
      Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order——
      The Chairman: I think that I can dispose of the matter to everyone's satisfaction right away. Passing references to Clause 87 are not only in order but seem to me to be essential if we are to understand what we are talking about. But let us not go into detail on Clause 87.
      Dr. Owen: This helps the Committee, Sir Robert. It is clear from what the Solicitor-General said that he should now clarify his position in relation to my point, embracing Clause 87 as well as Clause 86. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to help the Committee.
      We are concerned with a situation that deeply affects many men. For 90 people to have maintained a strike since June on very limited pay in a time of increasing prices shows that they feel that they have right on their side. I know that there are two interpretations of the strike, and they are very worried about the effect the Clause might have if they maintain their position and their solidarity after this Measure is passed. I hope that the Solicitor-General will intervene on the interpretation he has now given. I think that most hon. Members feel that it is this in the circumstances I have outlined. The Department still considers it to be a strike, and will not pay unemployment benefit, and does not accept that the workers were sacked at the end of June or early in July. The interpretation is that under the Bill there is nothing to stop sympathetic action continuing to help this isolated case, which was basically a fair strike.

      1869
      I have raised other points, but not to go into them in detail, The Department must consider its position with great seriousness. I have written to it and have had conversations with people in it. They seem to be taking sides in the dispute somewhat unfairly.
      We return to the principle. If the Solicitor-General interprets Clause 87 as narrowly as he seemed to do, then, though I still do not like it, the position is clearly much improved. I do not think that anyone would deny that. But we are very suspicious that that will not he the case. After all, one of the problems about the Bill is that it will be interpreted by lawyers. What people in the country do not realise is that we are making law, not just stating vague principles. It is the actual wording of Clauses 86 and 87 that will affect people's attitudes throughout the country.
      Much has been said by hon. Members opposite about their aim to strengthen trade unions. They say that the Bill is not an attack on trade unions, that it is to be an attack on bad management as much as on other aspects. But the root of the Bill is the continued attack on the principle of collectivism. I urge the Secretary of State in particular to look at-this. He has managed a large indust y and knows the problems. Some of us on this side have had the privilege of managing large industries. We know that over the years immense benefits have come from strong trade unions, from individuals grouping together to take collective action.
      I do not want to discuss the closed shop principle again, but the time when I was most involved with this was when I was negotiating probably the largest productivity deal ever negotiated by a Government Department, with industrial workers in the dockyards. The whole question came up, and I am glad to say that the managers of all the dockyards saw the benefit of a closed shop and exerted as much pressure as they felt they could for it. I was prepared to concede that no newcomer to the dockyard should be allowed who was not prepared to join a union. The question of sympathetic action is just as much a fundamental principle. There are cases where to deprive a union of the ability to take sympathetic action, particularly
      1870
      cases such as I have described of small factories in areas of high unemployment, which can easily fill up with blackleg labour, means a major emasculation of trade union powers, it is an emasculation which hits again at the principle of people combining.
      The Solicitor-General has given a very interesting interpretation. He said that it is a narrow interpretation and implied that in the circumstances I have outlined neither Clause 87 nor Clause 86 would stop sympathetic action taking place. If that is not the case, he should clarify the situation. We are hopeful that that is a concession that we shall obtain from the Government. But the Government are in danger of once again encroaching on a very important principle on which trade unionism is based just as much as management is. Management acts collectively, and there has been value in that. We would not despise it. But this principle needs a great deal of clarification, and we hope that the Committee will be given it in Clause 87.
      [Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone): I speak in support of the Amendment. I do not believe—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will forgive me—that there has been any concession whatever in the intervention of the Solicitor-General. I take the view that we are debating Clause 86 and that we should stick to it and then criticise the Government on Clause 87 when we get to that. Clause 86 is bad enough, in my judgment, and I want to concentrate on that.
      It is true, in my submission, that the Post Office strike would have nothing to do with Clause 86. It does not have to be brought into this discussion. What Clause 86 is governed by—and I think this should be common ground in the Committee—is the words,
      "… anything which by virtue of this Act is an unfair industrial practice on the part of that other person."
      That is the governing phrase. It means that action which anyone, either a union or a group of work people, is aiding or abetting or showing sympathy towards in the first place must have been an unfair industrial practice under the Bill.

      1871
      That much, I believe, ought to be common ground. Therefore, it rules out anything under Clause 86. I am not looking forward to other Clauses or discussing any principles. I am addressing myself entirely to the way in which Clause 86 is drafted. We therefore have to exclude from our minds at this moment of argument anything that is not in its origin an unfair industrial practice.
      The Bill is so full of what are called "unfair industrial practices" that this is not the narrow point which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to claim it to be, aided and abetted by some hon. Members opposite who are equally mistaken. It is a very wide and dangerous point which should be firmly opposed by this side of the Committee. Again, we must not start chasing hares as to what might happen if people who are not working in industry make speeches anyway.
      What this provision is meant to hit is the most civilising influence that the trade union movement has had in British history—solidarity and sympathy for fellow workers. That is what the provision is meant to hit, and to hit fundamentally and most unfairly. There is not an organisation in the country, or anywhere else, that has done more to civilise the behaviour of people to people than the British trade union movement. It created the principle of solidarity which has allowed people when they have felt lonely and perhaps isolated, or with defeat staring them in the face, to feel that there were fellow workers who would show solidarity with them.
      No false distinction between unofficial and official disputes is involved here at all. The way the Bill is drawn means that both official and unofficial action can constitute an unfair industrial practice. The distinction is between unfair industrial practices and other industrial practices. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) agrees with me, he must know what he is agreeing with. It is a very wide principle. A whole trade union may be held as acting against the law if it is acting in aid and sympathy with what was originally regarded as an unfair industrial practice. That is the real distinction.
      1872
      Let us examine the position in real life. Let us take an example, which I knew about personally. Supposing a manager has been brought into a department and for several months has been conducting himself in a way in which he should not conduct himself. I take this example from the steel industry, with which I am very familiar, and no doubt in other industries there are similar examples. After feeling has built up, something cracks. As a result, the manager turns to two workpeople and says, "You two go home. I will not have you on this shift." This is said at 2.30 a.m. What are the men in that shift to do? Very often, the only possible reaction is to say, "In our opinion, you have no right to do this, and if these two men go, we go as well." This is very often the only kind of industrial self-defence that a group of work people are in a position to undertake in order to be effective at the time that it is most important that it should be effective, yet under the Bill it will be called an unfair industrial practice.
      Very often the dispute is put right because the much-maligned shop stewards get together in the morning, have a discussion with the senior manager, and the thing is cleared up and the two men come back to work. But if, for some reason, the thing is not cleared up quickly, it may be a question of another department coming out which was not involved in the original dispute, which the Government want the courts to interpret as an unfair industrial practice in origin. Perhaps there is a factory next door where the work people say, "We will not have this. If we allow this sort of action by a manager, such high-handed attitudes may spread. We are not going to make distinctions. The Government have declared, unjustly and unjustifiably, that this is an unfair industrial practice, but we shall go to the aid of the people next door. We will collect money and aid and support them on our shop floor."
      All this would fall under the trap of Clause 86. That is why it has very wide implications. The Government are taking away fundamental rights of the people by this Clause, as they are doing throughout the Bill. They must not be allowed to ride off by saying, "This is only very narrow Clause. If the conflict in its

      1873
      origin was not an unfair industrial practice, sympathetic action does not fall under this Clause", as though that makes it unimportant. One can see the clever way in which the lawyers advising the Government are trying to winkle in vast changes in the rights of British working people under the pretence that these are only very narrow changes. We should stick strictly to this question of the invasion of the rights of the working people.
      Another point makes the Clause wider still in its application. At present we have no distinctions between registered and unregistered unions. The Government are trying to introduce a very great difficulty for a union which is not registered once the Bill becomes law. That has implications that would still further widen the application of Clause 86, which is designed to frighten people into registration. I use the term advisedly and very rarely, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but I say now that this is the beginning of an approach to the corporate State. This is deliberate intimidation of unions which are not prepared to register, as they now have the perfect right not to do. This is something that the Government are trying to slip in without admitting to it.
      Under the provisions of the Bill, an unregistered trade union would be engaging in an unfair industrial practice that would be regarded as a perfectly fair industrial practice if it were engaged upon by a registered trade union. That makes the Clause wider still. It does not mean that all the actions of an unregistered trade union would fall under this provision—of course not. That is the additional danger. The main danger remains the original one that I have pointed out—that it is not possible or desirable that a group of workpeople should be prevented from using immediately their only way of industrial self-defence.
      The Solicitor-General showed his ignorant approach to industrial relations and industrial life when he spoke yesterday. These things do not happen at the drop of a hat, as he suggested; they do not happen because someone suddenly gets in a rage. They happen because something has been building up. In the factory I quoted as an example, the situation had been building up over a period of six months. There comes a situation
      1874
      when what has been a bad attitude by the management flashes into action against certain workpeople. That is the point where solidarity has to assert itself, as anyone with experience in industry knows. It is at that point that sympathetic action—taken when it is most needed—comes under this Clause. I hope that we shall oppose Clause 86 and support the Amendment.
      Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that this was the first occasion on which he had spoken during this Committee stage. It is unfortunate that he has not previously contributed out of his considerable experience, but I hope that we shall hear more from him. When the Bill becomes law, it will be clear whether the two cases which he cited were fair or unfair industrial practices, and it will therefore be clear whether Clause 86 would apply to sympathetic action in connection with them.
      I am surprised to find myself in some agreement with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson); we rarely agree. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) spoke of action which he might have taken which was seen to be aiding and abetting the Post Office strike. Leaving aside whether arbitration should have been used, let us assume that under the Bill it would be an entirely fair industrial practice and an official strike; any aiding and abetting which the hon. Gentleman mentioned would then not be subject to any penalty under Clause 86.
      Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and I are members of the same trade union. As a result of the Post Office strike, a person had a contract to deliver mail, goods or parcels. The members of my union employed by the firm say that it is a breach of an industrial dispute. Clause 86 in line 36 uses the words
      "by virtue of this Act".
      Clause 87 states what are the other unfair industrial practices covered by the Bill, one being to induce a person to break a contract, not being a contract of employment—otherwise, a commercial contract. My union will not allow this man to deliver mail because that would be breaking a strike which we support and for which we have sympathy, and we there-

      1875
      fore say that we are taking sympathetic action, but it is an unfair industrial act by virtue of what is said in Clause 86. Now—
      The Temporary Chairman: An intervention must be an intervention, not a speech. I recognised the need for a technical description, which is why I forbore to interrupt earlier, but the hon. Gentleman must not take it too far.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to you, Mr. Jennings. This would be an unfair industrial practice under Clause 86. This is something which my union has frequently discussed.
      Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has forestalled one of my questions to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I should like clarification as to whether sympathetic action in support of unfair sympathetic action would itself be unfair. For the moment, I am reading Clause 86 as though the action which is to be considered unfair would follow the original unfair action; but I should welcome an explanation from my hon. and learned Friend.
      The hon. Member for Penistone said with a great weight of emphasis that the governing words in the Clause were "unfair industrial practice". He went on to say that he was not happy about the list of unfair industrial practices in the Bill. He is entitled to say that; but Clause 86 simply says that if the Government and, when the Bill becomes law, the country do not accept unfair industrial practices as such we cannot accept the proliferation of strike action in support of unfair industrial practices which we cannot support.
      It is a simple argument and one which with Clause 86 as it stands, apart from my query about sympathetic action, is unarguable in the context of the whole Bill and the acceptance of the list of unfair industrial practices.
      Mr. John Mendelson: It is not only arguable but very greatly arguable. Even if the Government intend to have a series of novel definitions, bitterly opposed by the trade union movement, of what will in future constitute unfair industrial practices, it is one thing to discourage people from doing what the Government would regard as an unfair industrial practice, but quite another to attack the solidarity of
      1876
      working people when, as a matter of the judgment of their own conscience, working people take sympathetic action in support of those already engaged in a struggle.
      Mr. Butler: The Bill is meant to prevent or reduce unofficial action which in some circumstances might call for sympathetic action. There is no undermining of trade union solidarity where there is a fair industrial practice; that is to say, a fair, constitutional strike. I can see no objection to Clause 86 as it stands, and I therefore support it.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Atkinson (Tottenham): The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) was adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) when he said that the Bill deprived people of judgment, and this is what this part of the Bill is about. I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend, except for his opening remarks. I remind him that an academic university lecturer works in a sheltered occupation, so sheltered and privileged that it is not for him to remind others that they have not worked in industry and to say that they are, therefore, not qualified to comment on Bills of this kind.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I have not done that.
      Mr. Atkinson: You did in your opening remarks.
      The Temporary Chairman: Not in mine.
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said about Fine Tubes. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton was absolutely right, and the fact that he is a doctor does not invalidate his argument; if anything, it strengthens it.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I do not know where my hon. Friend has been in the last ten minutes, but I did not mention the Fine Tubes case and I did not refer to any of the things which he has been mentioning. He must have been dreaming.
      Mr. Atkinson: I look forward to reading my hon. Friend's opening remarks in HANSARD. Apart from that, I entirely agree with what he said. His interpretation was absolutely right.

      1877
      I remind the hon. Member for Bosworth of the purpose of the Bill and especially these two Clauses, which, as he rightly said, is to ban sympathetic action. That is the way in which the Bill is designed and that is the purpose of the Government.
      Mr. Butler: I apologise for breaking into the hon. Gentleman's remarks so early and before he has had a chance to develop his argument, but I did not refer to sympathetic action taken in respect of fair industrial practices. I hope that we shall soon move on to the next Clause, because that deals with the more important matter. I confined myself to Clause 86.
      Mr. Atkinson: That is the point I was about to come to. This marks the difference in our approaches to the Bill and its purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone forcefully pointed out that sympathetic action is to be outlawed by the Bill very largely depending on one's interpretation on what is fair and unfair.
      So far as I am concerned with my class bias—or my objectivity perhaps—my interpretation of most industrial disputes is that they are always fair. In that sense, it would not be straining my own dialectics to say that the working class is always right and can never be wrong. Having asserted that, I start out on my analysis of this legislation.
      The question of what is fair and what is unfair gives us an understanding of what the Bill is about. I totally reject—and I am one of many who take this view on this side of the Committee—the Government's understanding of fair and unfair industrial practices. We certainly challenge the interpretation of hon. Members opposite. We would say that almost all disputes, unofficial or official, are honourable occasions, and we are proud of the part played by shop stewards in organising workers and fighting for better standards for people in industry.
      We cannot spell it out any clearer than that what divides us in this matter of deciding what is fair and unfair. The longer discussion goes on in this Committee the more some of us will tend to start apologising for what hon. Members opposite regard as an unfair practice. To us it is nothing of the kind. We must get out of this habit before it catches on. We should recognise that in our language
      1878
      and in terms of our purpose every dispute is a fair one.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): It represents freedom.
      Mr. Atkinson: Of course it does. We should not take a semi-apologetic attitude on these matters.
      The Government's view appears to be that employers have a right to combine but trade unions have not. Employers have a right to combine together to overcome disruption which may arise as a result of an industrial quarrel, but the Bill spells out that trade unions have no such a right to combine to further that quarrel in safeguarding their own interests. Again, there is a class difference in approaching the problems of industry. We are arguing that the trade unions have every right to take this sort of combined action to represent their own interests.
      If I may come to the Fine Tubes argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned that a district levy was being applied in his own district to help members who had suffered loss of wages. This was a voluntary effort by members of the trade unions concerned, and the levy went to a central fund. It would appear that under Clauses 86 and 87 such a levy would not be possible. This is one of our major objections to these Clauses since it will create difficulties for trade unionists in raising funds by levy to help fellow trade unionists. This is a very real problem. I should be interested to hear the Solicitor-General's views about the imposition of levies or the taking of collective action in such circumstances.
      Are the Government saying that in terms of a "fair"—to use the Government's language—dispute an injunction is not permissible? I do not know whether the Solicitor-General is familiar with the recent Johnson Matthey case, which will undoubtedly go down in trade union history, or indeed anti-trade union history. Is it feasible that such a case will arise in future? It involved an employer who sought an injunction and claimed compensation from a trade union which took sympathetic action. No doubt such a situation would depend on the interpretation of a fair or unfair industrial dispute and its origins. We shall oppose these two Clauses if only because of the difficulties they will create for trade

      1879
      unions in raising funds to help those who are in dispute.
      The second point involves the problems which arise when a transfer of work takes place within the walls of a particular factory. When there is a dispute in one department of a factory, managements seek to overcome the subsequent loss of production by shifting the work to another department in the same factory. This happens regularly in many large factories. Trade unionists in the department in which the dispute has occurred go to workers in the other department and try to persuade them not to carry out any work on that transferred job within the same factory. This is not a narrow point on fair and unfair practices but a major problem which confronts a trade union organisation in a factory and within the same works committee. I should have thought that that sort of case was parallel to the Fine Tubes situation, although within the walls of the same factory.
      My reading of Clause 87 leads me to believe that it is the Government's intention—and presumably this will be the court's interpretation at a future date—that all sympathetic action, or "blacking of work", as we know it today, will be outlawed in general, except in narrow circumstances where the question of fairness is clearly defined. If there is any ambiguity about the origin of a dispute, the court no doubt will take the view that sympathetic action is to be outlawed. This again is one of our fundamental objections to this Clause.
      I believe that once the Bill becomes law these two Clauses will be the first to be used, and that it is in respect of these provisions that the first trade union casualties will come.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not talking about two Clauses. We are talking about one Clause, with passing reference being allowed to Clause 87.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: The emphasis of my remarks stems from Clause 86 and not from Clause 87. Therefore, any reference to Clause 87 is a passing reference. My remarks are centred on Clause 86.
      We are discussing a part of the Bill which will cause the first casualties in the trade union movement if it becomes
      1880
      law. The first casualties will be those charged with offences under the Clause, and we must be very careful about what we do. We must ensure that the Government thoroughly understand what they are doing and what is likely to result from the law as it will become. Presumably the Government are anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book before 18th March, when the T.U.C. is being recalled. I take it that they have discussed the timetable in the light of that fact.
      Mr. Orme: It will be impossible to get the Bill on the Statute Book by then because of the Lords.
      Mr. Atkinson: It will not be impossible. When the imposition of the guillotine was first discussed, presumably the Government's intention was to get the Bill through by the time the T.U.C. was recalled. There are precedents. We dealt with the Bill on Rolls-Royce in a day. There is no doubt that we can get through this Bill by 18th March. Assuming that the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are right in their assessment of the time that it will take to put before the House a code of conduct and other matters in the next three or four months, there will be a period in October and November when we shall run into trouble with these two Clauses.
      There are areas in industry in which there will be need to renew contracts and existing arrangements about October and November. I therefore predict that the two Clauses will bring in their wake a trail of casualties—the first people to suffer as a result of this iniquitous legislation.
      Mr. Dunn: On a point of order. I seek your help and guidance, Mr. Jennings. In initiating the discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, I did not make much reference to Clause 85 or Clause 87, but it is within my knowledge that my colleagues will wish to do so. I draw your attention, Mr. Jennings, to line 4 of Clause 87, which refers to Clause 86(2) and sets out paragraphs (a) and (b) dealing with the interpretation and implementation of Clause 87. Therefore, the Clauses cannot be separated.
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was present when the Chairman of Ways and Means gave a Ruling

      1881
      on this matter. The hon. Gentleman must abide by that Ruling, as I intend to do. The Chairman ruled that, while Clause 86 was the Clause under discussion, passing references could be made to Clause 87 because it was in part bound up with Clause 86. I have allowed passing references to Clause 87. But the hon. Gentleman must remember that we are due to debate not only an Amendment on Clause 87 but the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If we abide by the Chairman's generous interpretation we shall get along all right.
      Mr. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Jennings. Having read the Clause carefully, it would seem that some of my arguments which were challenged now have more validity. Should not the Ruling be varied, because there is specific reference in Clause 87 to Clause 86(2)?
      The Temporary Chairman: The point is well made, and I hope that hon. Members take note of the arguments.
      Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne): I speak with some diffidence because it is always a little odd for a Member to complain of the lack of progress of a Clause and then make a speech which takes up the time of the Committee. Therefore, I promise to be very brief.
      The Committee is making rather heavy weather of the Clause. It is conceded by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it does not put a blanket ban on sympathetic strikes in the sense that it does not ban a strike in support of a strike which is legitimate and is not an unfair industrial act under some other Clause of the Bill. The Clause says in the simplest possible language that if a person or union is guilty of an unfair industrial act it is only common sense to say that a person who aids and abets such action by strike action is also guilty of an unfair act.
      If we did not have the Clause in the Bill, the result would be completely absurd. Clause 7 seeks to ban the pre-entry closed shop. If Clause 87 were not added to the Bill we would be in the absurd situation that, whereas workers in a shop could not take strike action to enforce a pre-entry closed shop, people in the shop next door could take strike action to enforce a pre-entry closed shop.
      1882
      That would be veritable midsummer madness. If we provide in the Bill that certain industrial action is unfair and is not permitted, we cannot later in the Bill allow people working next door to the people directly affected to take that form of action. That is what the Clause is about, and I do not see any mystery about it.
      The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that perhaps the Bill would become law by March. I am sure that people outside would be absolutely delighted if that were possible, but I am afraid that it is crying for the moon. I make this criticism, with the greatest respect for the hon. Member, who I know has studied the Bill and made a number of very useful contributions in Committee. He said that, as a result of the Bill, employees will have no right to combine.
      Hon. Members should be very careful about how they put their arguments. The sort of phrase used by the hon. Gentleman will be latched on to by people in the country. When the hon. Gentleman stops to reflect for a moment, I am sure that he will agree with me that the Bill does nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the Bill are there provisions which take away from the working man the right to combine. So let us all learn to be a little more careful about our language so that people in the country do not get a misleading impression of what the Bill is about.
      I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been deeply disturbed at some of the advertising in the Press undertaken by the T.U.C. which bears not the slightest relationship to the Bill's contents. I had to comment at a meeting the other day—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the terms of the Clause.
      Mr. Waddington: I realise that I was skating on thin ice, Mr. Jennings, but I was merely trying to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Tottenham. He said in terms that as a result of this Bill employees would have no right to combine. I wanted to make it clear—and I take it no further than that—that the Bill does nothing of the sort. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede, on reflection, that not only does the Bill not do that but certainly this

      1883
      Clause does not. The Committee would probably, in these circumstances, be wise to move on to more interesting Clauses.
      Mr. Atkinson: What I was arguing was that I challenged this definition of the term "unfair" or "unfair practice". I then went on to relate my remarks to that and said that the Bill denies workers the right to combine, in effect, to commit an "unfair practice" in the terms used by the Government. Would not the hon. Member agree that what the Bill is doing is making it impossible for workers to combine to commit an "unfair practice"?
      Mr. Waddington: What the Bill says is that certain practices should be considered—and normal people would so consider them—unfair to the extent—
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Waddington: I am talking about normal——
      Mr. Eric S. Heller (Liverpool, Walton): Who the hell are normal or ordinary people?
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not a proper parliamentary practice for an hon. Member on a Front Bench to say, "Who the hell are ordinary people?" The hon. Member must withdraw that unparliamentary expression—once again.
      Mr. Heller: I have no intention of withdrawing anything at all. I merely asked the hon. Member who the hell are ordinary people. What does he mean?
      The Temporary Chairman: There is a limit to the type of language which one can use in the Chamber, and I think that that language is derogatory language. I am not asking the hon. Member to withdraw the sense or the content, but just the form, of the expression.
      Mr. Heffer: Mr. Jennings, I have called a spade a spade. If you say that that is unparliamentary I will withdraw the term which I used. But I will now ask the hon. Member who are the normal people he is talking about? I am assuming that all the trade unionists and their wives and families who number thousands—indeed, millions—of people are normal. Is the
      1884
      hon. Member saying they are not normal? Is that what the hon. Member is saying?
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has withdrawn the expression.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Temporary Chairman: I call Mr. Waddington to answer in a sentence.
      Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking): On a point of Order——
      The Temporary Chairman: Later. Mr. Waddington.
      Mr. Waddington: I was replying——
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Temporary Chairman: I have called the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) to answer an intervention by the hon. Member. I will take a point further to the point of order in a moment. Mr. Waddington.
      Mr. Waddington: I was in the course of replying to an intervention—
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Temporary Chairman: I am not taking any further point of order because we are dealing with a point of order. I now call Mr. Waddington to deal with the question. I will come back to a point of order.
      Mr. Waddington: I was in fact answering an intervention by the hon. Member for Tottenham and then perhaps I could come to the question which was posed.
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order.
      The Temporary Chairman: We cannot take a fresh point of order. We are on one.
      Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. We are not on a point of order, Mr. Jennings. The hon. Member says he is replying to some other point than that raised from our Front Bench.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. A point of order was raised. An intervention was made. I am asking Mr. Waddington to reply to the point which was raised. Then I will take the further point of order.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Waddington: Could I make one thing plain? I did not hear any remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. I was unaware of it. I was answering the point made by the hon. Member for Tottenham. If I could finish what I was saying in reply to the hon. Member for Tottenham——
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings.
      The Temporary Chairman: All right. I will take the point of order.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Temporary Chairman: Mr. McNamara.
      Mr. McNamara: You ruled before, Mr. Jennings, that you could not take a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) because there was a reply being made to an intervention. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has been making a reply—not to a point of order but to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). Surely according to the rules, when a point of order is made, it is for the Chair to stop the proceedings on the business while points of order are discussed. Therefore, my point of order is that I am asking you why on that point of order you have not asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barking to make his point of order.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I asked the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) to reply to an intervention which was in fact a point of substance. We may have been confused in thinking that a point of order may have occurred. I am quite prepared now, in view of the representations made, to consider a point of order. The Chair can always come back to a point if one has made a mistake—and I admit it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know the Committee recognises that. Therefore I now come to the point of order. I think we are all making mistakes at the moment.
      Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings. I am most grateful to you for your very handsome correction of your slip. We all know that mistakes can be made, even
      1886
      by someone as exalted as yourself. The point I was raising on a point of order, and raise now, was precisely your intervention on my hon. Friend's remark from the Front Bench, because I have been here a good many years—indeed, you have, too—and I have heard the word "hell" used occasionally, without rebuke; and I was wondering whether, for the guidance of the Committee, you could quote some precedents from Rulings by either Chair that such a phrase "what the hell" should not be used. I am afraid that I used a very naughty word— "damn"—yesterday and I was not called to order. Is "hell" really out of order?
      The Temporary Chairman: "Hell" in certain contexts is neither unparliamentary nor——
      An Hon. Member: You have just said it is out of order.
      The Temporary Chairman: Let the Chair finish a sentence, for goodness' sake. There is a list of proscribed words in Erskine May—I think round about page 712. The word "hell", to my memory, is not included, but when the word "hell" is used in the context in which the hon. Member used it I think it exceeds parliamentary politeness and decorum. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is no precedent about the use of the word "hell", then I have created one. I have objected to the expression.
      Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. As you know, Mr. Jennings, in the many years you and I have been here I have always had a high regard for the Chair. I am a little concerned about the Ruling which you have just given, because in the heat of the moment, a week ago, when I was talking about this Bill, I said that the Government were in a hell of a mess and the country was in a hell of a mess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those words appear in HANSARD. What is more important is, I was not rebuked by the occupant of the Chair in this Committee at that time.
      The Temporary Chairman: I am not bound by what other Chairmen think or say. I am bound by my own standards in the Chair, as well as by precedents, Standing Orders, tradition. I think, as I said before, that that was an objectionable and unparliamentary expression. If

      1887
      I think it so, I have as much right to say so as the hon. Member thinks he has to use it. I am entitled to say so. If in fact I have created a precedent—well, all well and good. I think it is time that hon. Members just looked at some of the language which is being used in the present Parliament. I am no Puritan. Hon. Members who know me know that, but I object to such an expression being used, certainly when I am in the Chair, and I shall keep on saying so.
      Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. We have had this little fracas and I hope that the Committee will now get on with the business. I will not express an opinion on whether I disagree or agree with the Chairman's Ruling, but I have withdrawn my statement on the basis of the Chairman having asked me to do so. It can perhaps be pursued at a different time and place. I ask the Committee now to get on with the business.
      The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Waddington: I was saying that I fully understand that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) disapproves of and dislikes the whole concept of unfair and fair industrial action. It is one thing to say that one objects to the creation of this new concept of fair and unfair industrial actions, but it is another thing to go so far as to say that as a result of the passing of the Bill employees will have no right to combine.
      I was invited to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He asked me to say what I meant by normal and ordinary people. When I was speaking in Yorkshire on Friday night I was asked a question, "Don't you realise that there are 10 million trade unionists in the country most of whom have wives and families? I have tried to work it out and they represent 68 per cent. of the population, so you have no mandate for the Bill." I said, "What sort of fantasy world are we living in? I do not represent Bournemouth or a seaside resort, I come from Nelson, which used to be called 'little Moscow'. If I go into Nelson on Saturday morning I do not get lynched, I am far more likely to be approached by a wife who says, 'I wish you would tell my Jack to get back to
      1888
      work and use a bit of common sense.'" That is the sort of approach that is made to Members of Parliament in their constituencies. That is what I mean when I refer to ordinary people. The ordinary people are behind the Bill and we know it from their reactions in the constituencies.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith): Time and time again in considering the Bill we have had from the Government bench in reply to criticisms from the Opposition the answer that a registered trade union is protected. In considering Clause 86 that stock answer cannot be made. Registered trade unions are not protected under Clause 86.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) both touched upon the way in which Clause 86 undermines the solidarity of trade union organisation. Since registered trade unions are not protected by Clause 86, considerable point is put on what the hon. Member for Penistone said about the workers feeling isolated. If they do something which is an unfair industrial practice they cannot be backed up by a registered trade union because the trade union would then be in breach of Clause 86.
      In the centre of Clause 86 are the words "aiding and abetting". These are words of criminal application, not of civil application. Although it has been said on many occasions on the Government benches that the concepts embodied in the Bill are civil concepts, here a criminal concept enters in. I stress the width of those words "aiding and abetting". They are as wide and their meaning is at least as sinister as the word "induce" in Clause 85. In the criminal courts juries are told that aiding and abetting is sufficiently established if there is a look-out man while a safe blowing is going on in an office or factory. The look-out man is just as guilty of the safe blowing as those who are actually doing it. That is the width of the concept that is being applied here.
      While many things done by unregistered organisations, by ad hoc bodies of workers, are unfair industrial practices although they would be perfectly fair if they were done by trade unions, many things which it is now legitimate for trade unions to do would not be fair

      1889
      practices under the Bill. Certainly Clause 86 would strike at many things which are done in the workshop and which are now considered fair and perfectly legitimate industrial procedures.
      I apologise for referring, in passing only, to Clause 85, but it is important to notice how far the attack on the freedom of conversation and the liberty of speech between workers on the shop floor goes in these two Clauses. The curtailment of liberty is so extreme that I would be inclined to say that these two Clauses impose a kind of statutory "Coventry" on workers. I make a passing reference to Clause 85 because the unfair practices in Clause 85 will be struck at by Clause 86. If in a workshop there is a source of disagreement and the workers are annoyed about something—an illustration was given in our last debate of a time and motion study of girls going to the lavatory—it will be obvious to anyone who has ever seen a workshop that the workers will converse amongst themselves about it.
      Yesterday criticism was made about the difficulty of getting evidence, but one would only have to put in a tape recorder to hear conversations all round the workshop. The workers would be discussing their grievances and saying what might be done about them. My criticism of these two Clauses is that that conversation on any view would be subject to the construction that it is inducing. When one worker says to another, "We must take action about this", the first worker could be taken to be inducing the second worker to take action. It is no good saying that it would be all right for a spontaneous walk-out or a spontaneous laying-down of tools to take place, because, if before that there had been conversation between the workers, this would be construed as inducing and, whether they were or were not members of a trade union, this would be unfair practice.
      When it comes to the trade union seeking to back up the workers who can be charged with inducing each other to break their contracts, the trade union cannot give that official support because by doing so it would be aiding and abetting in terms of Clause 86.
      If, after a conversation which could be construed as inducing, a worker decides to stop work or to lay down his
      1890
      tools, that is unfair practice and automatically under Clause 85 once he has done that any further conversation could be regarded as abetting, and, if action follows, as abetting a strike.
      Mr. Gower: While I accept some of the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman, does he not agree that what he fears will arise only if there is an original unfair industrial practice, and any reference which is likely to arise would be based on the original unfair industrial practice and not on any secondary matters of the kind he describes?
      Mr. Murray: It is certainly true that the section has to be preceded by an unfair industrial practice. Apart from the three Clauses which we are dealing with in Part V, there are no fewer than 22 heads of unfair industrial practice. Of these, a great many heads of unfair industrial practice are practices that would be fair for a trade union but unfair for an organisation of workers that is not registered. That means that many things which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and I would regard as perfectly legitimate industrial practices today will be struck at by Clause 86.
      I ask the Government Front Bench to think again about these Clauses. I have spoken carefully and avoided speaking about Clause 87, for which I ought to be congratulated. All of the Clauses in this part of the Bill are open to the same criticism and I call upon the Government to drop Part V or else to think again about it and, if they are not prepared to drop it, at least exclude from these provisions conversations between fellow workers about conditions.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West): If we take the Clause discussed last night and the other related Clauses, 86 and 87, which we cannot discuss, then in my opinion this is the introduction of Big Brother into industrial relations. This is 1984.
      Mr. Orme: Fascism.
      Mr. Loughlin: This part of the Bill tells the worker, "You must not talk, you must not suggest that anyone should do something, and if you do so we will take action against you". My biggest regret is that the Solicitor-General or the

      1891
      Secretary of State did not introduce this Clause. I am sorry to sound parrot-like, but here again we have imprecision. It will need a battery of lawyers to tell people precisely what is meant by the words in Clause 86.
      There have been arguments as to whether it applies to registered trade unions. The difficulty about the Bill is that it has been framed from theory but will not be applicable in practice without the results we have suggested. The Solicitor-General explained clearly in an intervention why this would not catch the full-time trade union official belonging to a registered trade union, or the funds of that union. This is quite true from the language of the Bill. However, what happens in practice is the important thing. I will try to illustrate this simply because I think the Solicitor-General ought to examine the applicability of this Clause rather than its theory.
      Suppose that there is a large holding branch in a trade union, where the general branch combines with people in various industries because the membership in the given unit is not large enough to justify a separate branch. This is not fanciful. Many of the big unions adopt this procedure. I will draw from my own experience again and relate this to U.S.D.A.W. We organised a laundry. The laundry workers are among the lowest paid workers in the country. We put them in the general branch. The laundry workers, rightly or wrongly, and if I was an official I might say wrongly, came out on unofficial strike. It was a long strike and they were low-paid people with no strike fund. At the branch meeting, at which the full-time union official was present, the rest of the branch members decide to make a collection for the strikers. The act in itself was illegal under this Clause because it would be financing the strike. But what would be the position of the trade union official?
      If a trade union official stands up and opposes the collection, as he has a legal responsibility to do, his life would not be worth living. If he does not oppose it he is passively supporting the unofficial strike action. In such circumstances it could be that an employer could charge a union because its official had been present. Even though it may appear that the registered unions will not be
      1892
      affected, there are so many circumstances in industry under which trade unions operate that they might, whether or not they or the Solicitor-General like it, act outside the Bill.
      I have a strong criticism to make of the Bill in that it has been drawn up by people with no idea of what goes on in industry. It may be good English and it may seek to deal with a given situation, but because it is not applicable to industrial conditions it is either a waste of time or else it imposes on industrial workers, registered and unregistered trade unions alike, a yoke against which they will not be able to strain.
      Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North): The Solicitor-General and I have already discussed this aspect earlier in our proceedings. If he recalls it I was describing to him the situation which arose during the local authority strike in September and October, which he will recall was as popular an industrial action with the general public as one would expect. This sort of Clause is not necessary to protect members of the public from that kind of strike. He will recall that the strike was selective and certain people were brought out in various parts of the country.
      In one area roadmen had been left working and the road contractors' drivers were bringing tar to the roadmen. After a while, once the strike had started, the contractors' lorrymen were unloading tar, taking the lorries into the centre of the town and picking up refuse from the dustbins (the dustmen were on strike) and taking it away to rubbish dumps.
      The result was that the National Union of Public Employees blacked the contractors' lorries as a way of maintaining the integrity of the strike. On that evening the Solicitor-General in those mellifluous tones we have got to know so well in this Committee, and with that lucid exposition of the law which we have also got to know, said that this might well not be illegal in terms of the Bill.
      What he has omitted to do is to bend his mind to the sort of situation that actually occurs in industry, a situation when we have a shop steward or a branch secretary, occupying such a position perhaps because no one else will do the job or because he has been a member of the

      1893
      road-working gang for longer than anyone else. He has to decide whether he will black those lorries. Will he induce some action, organise it, or will he bring pressure? At the moment all that he has to do is to decide on the basis of the industrial relations elements of the situation. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to do in addition is to impose the whole network of law on top of these unfortunate people.
      Unfortunate people they will be in the circumstances under which the Bill will operate. For example, if this shop steward or branch secretary blacked the lorry, through his union, because the lorry contractors were an extraneous party interceding in the dispute he might well be within the law but, without the benefit of what I am sure will be an inspiring legal volume to me— "Howe on the Law of Industrial Disputes" which we shall get for the price of several pounds in years to come—he would have to decide to stick to that sort of action, whereas what he might have done in the circumstances is to go to one of the lorry drivers and say, "Will you get your lorry drivers to stop this road-making contract?". In that event, he might well be within the terms of Clause 86, especially if the lorry driver told the roadmen's shop steward, "I do not want to go back to my employers and say that we have blacked this contract. But, if you can black it, I will tell them that the contract has been blacked, and matters can proceed smoothly".
      That is all very well, but people who become the secretaries of trade union branches are not normally the sort of people who say to themselves, "If I go about this operation in one way, I shall be within the law; whereas, if I go about it in another, I shall be outside the law". The liability of a trade union, of its shop stewards, its members and the union funds may depend not on the action taken at the point of the dispute but on the way in which the action is taken. If this Clause proves to be a contribution to the construction of good industrial relations, I shall be very surprised.
      I understand that it might be a defence under Clause 86 for a local branch secretary to explain that he was acting within the authority that his union had given him. However, on this sort of selective strike, it is difficult for branch
      1894
      secretaries and shop stewards to be confident that the way in which they are acting is within the law. For example, if a selective strike is called, the industrial action taken by the members of a union is a matter which must be taken by the national executive committee of the union, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, action in a dispute such as the one that I have described must be taken quickly and on the spot by someone who knows the situation, namely, the shop steward. In other words, a formal situation may arise where the authority to take this sort of action is reserved to the executive committee, whereas the actual action is taken by the shop steward on the spot.
      The shop steward on the spot having taken action, the matter then goes up the trade union line of command to the area officer, the divisional officer, the national officer and the executive committee, who may back the shop steward. If they do not and the shop steward becomes the source of an action under the Clause, he may be forced to explain that what he considered right at the time has proved subsequently to be wrong, that he did not have the authority of his union and, therefore, that he has committed an unfair industrial practice.
      These are some of the practical problems which the Government seek to impose on trade unionists supposedly in the interests of creating good industrial relations. In fact, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are creating chaos, disorder and confusion on the ground.
      I have been interested in industrial relations for about 15 years. Looking back over the years, one of the most socially productive industrial actions that I can recall was one which may be banned by the Clause. I do not know whether I shall have all my right hon. and hon. Friends with me, but I believe that the growth of compensation for redundancy has been one of the most constructive achievements in industrial relations in my 15 years' experience. I give the Solicitor-General the point that a large part came about as a result of the introduction of the law into the subject, although the law was introduced following meticulous negotiations between the B.E.C., as it then was, and the T.U.C. The Measure was not introduced until agreement had been reached. However, I say that in passing.

      1895
      It is difficult to comprehend at the beginning of the 1970s what was the attitude to compensation for redundancy even 15 years ago. I remember how managers in my industry would start a discussion on the subject of compensation for redundancy with the statement that a labourer in the industry was on an hourly rate and therefore was entitled only to an hour's pay or an hour's notice when the time came to dismiss him, no matter what the circumstances were. It may be that they never intended that to be the ultimate solution, but it was the point from which they started their argument on the subject of redundancy.
      6.15 p.m.
      Against that background, in the summer of about 1956, a number of car workers drew their weekly pay on a Friday afternoon and discovered in their pay packets a week's pay, together with another week's pay and a little note thanking them for their past services and saying that they would not be required in a week's time. Without resorting to the negotiating machinery, large numbers of those car workers went on strike against what they regarded as this inhuman handling of a redundancy problem.
      A process of negotiation by means of Press statements began in which the general attitude of the management could be summed up as, "We do not care if you go on strike because we do not want your services, anyway. We were being decent in keeping you for another week, so you might as well strike now".
      Clearly, those strikers were in a very weak position. I cannot remember whether the strike was made official by the Transport and General Workers Union. The situation was solved by Mr. Frank Cousins, who had recently become General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, telling his dockers to black exports of cars at the docks. The result was that the Coventry car employers caved in rapidly. Compensation for redundancy was negotiated for the car workers who had been threatened with dismissal, and, from then on, a social movement was begun which resulted in the Redundancy Compensation Act and the provision of redundancy compensation to almost every employee who is dis-
      1896
      charged as a result of technological change.
      I would like the Committee to contemplate what may have been the feelings of members of the public affected by the secondary action to which I have referred. They may have been bitter. Dock employers were losing money, and they may have been bitter. Other members of the public inconvenienced as a result of the non-flow of cars through the docks may have been bitter. But if that action had not been taken, all members of the public would now be worse off since it would not have started the social and industrial movement which has ended up by giving the country a method of redeploying its labour as painlessly as possible and introducing many technological changes over the past 15 years with a relative lack of resistance. All that has been possible because of this conception of redundancy payments, and the net result is that every member of the public today enjoys a higher standard of living than would have been possible if this movement had not been started by that strike. We might have achieved the compensation later and possibly in a less satisfactory form. But it was that strike more than any other that I can recall in my 15 years' experience of industrial relations which made such an important contribution to the way in which we look at these matters.
      This is the sort of sympathetic action which, unless it is handled carefully by trade union officials on the ground, will render trade union officials liable to action under this legislation. From time to time, right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite put their hands on their hearts and say that they are in favour of the right to withdraw labour. I am sure that they are sincere. However, a little gloss should be put on their attitude. What they are saying is that, provided that a strike is ineffective, it is moral and may be legal. But if a strike is effective, it is immoral and should be declared illegal by every possible means at the disposal of this Government.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge): I should like to put one question to my hon. and learned Friend. May I ask

      1897
      why he wants the words "threaten to take"? I can understand that my hon. and learned Friend wants power to take steps. But is he not giving himself a great deal of unnecessary trouble by the vague words "threaten to take"? Will they not cause something complex of definition?
      Surely the purpose of the Clause would be served perfectly well if those words were omitted. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will tell us his thinking about them. I should like to know the reasons which have promoted my hon. and learned Friend to put those three words into the Clause.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty): The point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) is germane to the discussion. What I hope will also be germane is to state categorically that our objections to Clause 86 are based on the knowledge that it is intended to strike at the very sinews of collective bargaining and trade unionism.
      No doubt the Solicitor-General will employ his tortuous semantic meanderings later to try to prove that the Clause does not apply to this, that or the other strike, or that there are so many exemptions that it will be a last resort sanction imposed upon trade unionists which will apply only in rare circumstances, rare strikes, or, to use another term, something sort of a strike. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain what "short of a strike" means.
      We have come to the conclusion that the phraseology of the Clause and the way that it has been presented by hon. Gentlemen opposite—notably the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington)—confirms our worst fears and suspicions about the nature of the Bill and this Clause in particular.
      Throughout the debates on the various Clauses we have had constant repetition by the Secretary of State, by the Solicitor-General, and, almost without exception, by all hon. Members opposite who have spoken that they believe in strong trade unionism, that they wish to see the development and expansion of trade unionism, that they wish to see the liberalising of industrial relations, and that they want to remove all kinds of social injustices from industry.
      1898
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot say that they want to expand, support and strengthen trade unionism and simultaneously remove from trade unionism the basic fundamental means of securing industrial rights. It is no good dodging the issue. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must understand that it is absolutely fundamental that, if they seek to remove, usurp or infringe the right of workers to undertake industrial action in support of other industrial action, whether an unfair or fair industrial practice, or neither one thing nor the other, it will be interpreted correctly as a deliberate attempt to undermine the strength of trade unionism.
      The point is well made by comparison with American experience. I should like to quote from someone who can be accorded the status of an authority on American trade unionism, George Meany, President of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. In a document written at the end of last year about the proposed British system of industrial relations and comparing it with the system in America throughout the years, he said:
      "Since we have had no experience of freedom from these bans"—
      what he calls "secondary boycotts" and what we call "sympathetic strikes"—
      "we cannot state with assurance what different effects would have resulted. I am myself reasonably certain that union organisation would have occurred, in the absence of these restrictions, in various fields … where unscrupulous employers have largely blocked organisation."
      We cannot speak of America in terms of strong trade unionism when only 23 to 25 per cent. of the total labour force is unionised. No one can talk about strengthening trade unionism when, because of statute and common law throughout the history of industrial America, trade unionists have been forbidden in practice from undertaking sympathetic action. No one can argue that it is a system which has introduced a more peaceful, serene, pacific system of industrial relations in America.
      Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have acknowledged time and again that America's strike record and recruitment in certain sectors of the work force, notably among women and white collar workers, is significantly worse in ours, and that the disruption caused by strikes of public employees, which are in law

      1899
      illegal, is greater than here. All these things have happened in America where sympathetic strikes of any description have been illegal throughout its history of trade unionism, with the possible exception of the years between 1941 and 1947, when a favourable Federal Court judgment gave them a certain legality.
      If the Government argue and mean that they want to strengthen trade unionism, they will remove from our minds the most marginal suspicion of any attempt to strike at sympathetic action by removing the Clause. We know that this will not happen, so the suspicion will remain. It will be compounded and turned into industrial strife by bitterness because of the disingenuous hypocrisy of those who say, "We want industrial peace and strong trade unionism, but we will, by law, deny trade unionism the means of strengthening itself".
      The Solicitor-General: It is important for the Committee and the country to understand the objectives behind the Clause and not to interpret it too widely. I certainly cannot accept the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that unless we abandon the Clause, along with almost every other Clause, our whole exercise is unacceptable. I do not believe that people who have closely studied the present situation with genuine concern can come to the conclusion that anything which introduces the marginal suspicion of any curtailment of the absolute right of anyone to induce industrial action for any purpose must be rejected. I do not believe that that represents the feeling of the Committee or of the country.
      Mr. Orme: Speak for your side.
      The Solicitor-General: We are trying to make reasonable proposals which maintain the balance between the interests of society and of individual workers and the legitimate interest of the Labour Movement for maintaining its strength.
      Hon. Members have said in the debate, although less frequently as we have got closer to understanding what the Clause is about, that we are seeking to outlaw all sympathetic strikes. We are not. It may be thought outside this Committee that we are seeking to outlaw all sympa-
      1900
      thetic strikes without really bothering to define what we may mean by "sympathetic strikes", which is a phase more easily uttered than defined. We are not seeking to do any such thing. We recognise the importance of the trade union movement and to workers in their own organisations to be able to rely upon and to invoke the assistance of borrowed strength. We merely suggest that there are some areas and some situations where that is either not necessary or not desirable to proceed in that way. [Interruption.] Parliament decides. That is what we have been concerned with during these discussions. We are striving to strike a balance in pursuit of the central proposition that the calling of strike action in certain situations is too often regarded as a weapon of first, rather than last, resort.
      6.30 p.m.
      It is for that reason that the inclusion of the words "threaten to take" assumes some importance. Anyone who has been concerned with this problem will know that it is much easier to stop people coming out on strike than it is to persuade them to go back once they have come out. In the range of situations which we have identified as unfair it is right that someone who is threatened with the calling of a strike in pursuit of an unfair objective should be able to get that threat averted. It is at that point that the day may be saved. It is too late if a strike in pursuit of an unfair objective is called. Then the only way of dealing with the situation may be the awarding of compensation.
      Once we accept that there are certain strikes the calling of which are unfair because they are in pursuit of an unfair objective—and I appreciate that there is not common ground between both sides of the Committee on that point—it is right, logical and necessary that a strike in support of one designed to secure an unfair objective shosuld itself be identified as unfair. I agree that it is right and logical that if the original strike is unfair—which can arise in the case of some strikes that are called by registered unions, as well as unregistered organisation—no matter what the nature of the organisation that calls or procures the supporting of the strike, it is equally unfair. Subject to the important qualification mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North

      1901
      (Mr. Moyle), even then an official of the union, acting within the scope of his authority, remains protected under the law.
      Mr. McNamara: I want to take the Solicitor-General back to the first part of his argument, when he spoke about a sympathetic strike in support of a fair strike—that is to say, a strike legitimately called by a registered trade union. I am in rather a difficulty on that point. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to help me by citing a possible example. If we take two separate bargaining units, as defined in the Bill, it would be possible to have a legitimate strike in one bargaining unit and a sympathetic strike in the second bargaining unit, with the consequence of the second sympathetic strike in the other bargaining unit not in actual dispute not being affected by Clause 87(1)(a) and (b). That is the difficulty.
      The Solicitor-General: I am reluctant to be drawn into answering that question precisely. [Laughter.] Hon. Members need not laugh. I shall be happy to answer the point as far as the rules of order permit. I shall deal with it properly as far as answering other questions permit.
      Mr. McNamara: Sir Robert, you will have heard what the Solicitor-General has said. Am I not right in saying that because of the contents of lines 36 and 37, and because of the reference back of Clause 87 to Clause 86(2), the Solicitor-General would in all probability be in order in answering the question that I have asked him?
      The Chairman: I have every confidence in the hon. and learned Member's ability to keep in order. He will recollect what I said earlier. I think that we can proceed safely along those lines.
      The Solicitor-General: I am trying to deal with the matter in the context of the debate as it has gone so far. I shall come to the hon. Member's point.
      The first proposition is that Clause 86 is designed logically and inevitably to curtail the right to call supporting strikes, but only where the primary strike is itself unfair. That is the objective that I commend to the Committee.
      1902
      The point concerning the relationship between Clauses 86 and 87 is a different one. Clause 87 is directed in a quite different way at a particular kind of secondary strike, whether the original strike is fair or unfair. I acknowledge that. It is differently designed. Clause 86 deals only with the strike in support of a primary strike that is unfair. Clause 87 can attach itself to situations where the primary strike is fair but the nature of the damage sought to be inflicted by the strike at which Clause 87 is directed is one which Parliament, if it accepts the Clause, regards as unfair.
      I do not want to go too far into that point. At the moment, through what is described in the Donovan Report as the maze of case law, it is possible in certain circumstances for an employer at whom a secondary strike is directed to secure an order restraining that secondary strike. It depends upon a very complex series of hoops through which he and the trade union have to go, and in recent case decisions a series of judgments have been arrived at, some of which, it may be said, agree with what my hon. Friends and I regard as fair and some of which may not agree with what we regard as fair. The important point is that the present law is securing its results as a result of a random legal pattern not related to the merits of the industrial situation. That point has been made by a number of commentators. Professor Grunfeld in at least two cases has made the point, and Professor A. D. Hughes has made the same point—both saying that there are certain situations where strike action in the secondary form can be properly regarded as unfair but that the present law does not achieve that objective in a rational way.
      We are seeking in Clause 87 to say that if a strike is called the person calling it is committing an unfair industrial practice if he is doing so in order to procure the breach of a specific commercial contract by a third party who is in no sense involved in the initial strike or dispute with which the strike order is concerned. If he can show that the person whom he is attempting to get to break the commercial contract is a party to the primary dispute and has taken action in support of the primary employer he is entitled to secure the breaches of that contract as he may.

      1903
      The only situation in which Clause 87 is designed to bite is that in which somebody sets out to procure breaches of a commercial contract on the part of someone in no sense connected with the original dispute.
      Mr. McNamara: I am keen to follow the Solicitor-General's thinking on this point. A dispute may arise in which the person referred to by the Solicitor-General is not a primary party to the dispute—that is, but for a contractual relationship, that person would not be in the dispute. If the result of the making of a contractual relationship is such that the person is being employed to break the strike—that is, by taking goods or services into that factory which will enable the person against whom the original dispute is being fought to continue his operations—is that then, for his purposes, aiding and abetting the original party to the dispute, in this case the employer, because he is then able to perform his normal function? Is strikebreaking of that sort legal?
      My second point is, how far does the hon. and learned Gentleman draw his line——
      The Solicitor-General: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I have been generous in giving way, and we are on the fringes of order in the debate on the Clause. I must be allowed to answer questions one at a time.
      The Chairman: That is fair on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is being rather too long.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a difficult point.
      The Solicitor-General: I am anxious not to go further than I should in the discussion of Clause 87. Clause 87 is designed to deal with the secondary strike whether or not the primary strike is fair. It is designed to deal with the secondary strike directed at the entirely innocent party, as we would put it. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the external party who takes action in support of the primary em-
      1904
      ployer against whom the original strike is called, in a way which the hon. Gentleman suggested, would not fall into that category, and the strike against him would be fair and in no sense restricted by Clause 87. Perhaps we can return to discussing the many examples on that when we discuss Clause 87.
      The central point about the Clause 86 strike is that it becomes unfair under the Clause only if the person against whom the complaint is brought is deliberately setting out to procure a secondary strike in support of the original unfair wrong purpose. This is at the root of some of the examples given by hon. Members opposite. For example, the present Post Office strike situation is about a fair objective, namely, the terms and conditions of the employees of the Post Office Corporation. There is no question of any secondary or sympathetic strike taken or induced in support of that fair primary strike being regarded as unfair.
      Similarly, on the point put by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about the Fine Tubes strike, the original strike was in respect of the terms and conditions of pay—a wages dispute—and secondary strikes called in support of or in sympathy with that remain fair.
      The same goes for the example put by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North when he spoke about the strike over redundancy pay. Certainly, if a strike were called, back in the time before the redundancy pay provisions were on the Statute Book in 1965, in protest at the lack of intention of the employer to make redundancy payments, that would be a strike about a term and condition of employment which would be a fair one, and any supporting or sympathetic action in respect of that would be fair.
      If the original strike was itself unofficial, called not by the union but by unofficial wild-cat people in breach of original contracts of employment, then that would be unfair and the right to have sympathy strikes in support of that would not follow. But, surely, if the original strike in support of which sympathetic action is going to be justified is one that is related and can be related to terms and conditions of employment which can be perfectly fair, then it is not unreasonable at least to expect a strike to be called on due notice or by a union exercising authority.
      Mr. Moyle: As far as I know, the hon. and learned Gentleman has expounded the legal position quite correctly, but would he bend his mind to the industrial relations situation where there is an explosion of wrath which may ante-date by a considerable time any official recognition of the dispute. In the intervening time, what happens to the sympathetic action?
      Mr. Orme: What about the nonregistered union?
      The Solicitor-General: That is the point which I was making, and an entirely fair one. That is where one returns to the provisions of Clause 102(3), that if the original strike, be it fair or unfair, called by a registered or an unregistered organisation is caused or provoked by clumsy conduct on the part of management of the kind which has been identified and described in that situation, then the Industrial Court—
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Loughlin: How long will it take the Industrial Court?
      The Solicitor-General: That is an aspect of some importance to appreciate here. In the present state of our law, developing perhaps unpredictably by case law, if a court now decides that a strike was unlawful through the present series of hoops, the ordinary courts have no inbuilt power to say that that strike, although it may be unlawful in the present law, was so manifestly provoked by management's incompetence that it would be wrong to grant any remedy in respect of it. In this framework the court is required to take into account the extent to which the original strike was provoked by management's conduct.
      Mr. John Mendelson: Before the Solicitor-General goes on to the wider problems of what happens if the union happens to be unregistered, will he deal with this? Does he not see that in arguing on the Bill—we do not accept, and the trade union movement does not accept, that there are unfair industrial practices—that the original strike was an unfair industrial practice he is now depriving workpeople in the workshops of their right to judge whether they wish to express solidarity because in their opinion they do not accept the definition "unfair industrial practice" as having given rise to the first conflict? That
      1906
      is a terrific widening of the deprivation of rights of working people to use their judgment on whether they are to exercise sympathy or solidarity or not.
      The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that it can be put in that way. The restraint is only in respect of the particular identified unfair practices. If someone is to claim the authority—as sometimes is done without the full backing of trade union—to call sympathetic strikes in pursuit of an objective already being pursued by other strikers, it is surely not unreasonable to say that the person claiming the right to call such a secondary supporting strike should satisfy himself as to the legitimacy of the primary objective.
      In any given situation, judgment has to be made in the light of facts. The kind of sympathy strikes which I have in mind are those on recognition issues, one of the matters which have caused a great deal of unnecessary hardship to people employed in industry, and more widely than that. Most of the cases which current case-law is working out to give remedies concern recognition strikes, like Stratford v. Lindley and some other recent cases. The Torquay Grand Hotel case is another one. It is being done in the present situation creakingly and by chance.
      What we are saying in the framework of the Bill is that there are new remedies per Clauses 42 to 48 where there is a recognition of a dispute, and that it is therefore fair to say that if a trade union is given the right to claim those remedies from an independent agency, it is unnecessary for it to resort to strike action when alternative machinery is made available for it.
      It follows from that that if the union is striking for recognition against employer A and can have a remedy in respect of that claim, and if the strike action against employer A is unfair, it would be illogical if a strike by that union or by others supporting it against employer B should not be regarded as unfair as well, because they are part of the same use and exercise of borrowed strength. Borrowed strength can by all means be used in the support of ordinary, fair strikes; but I suggest to the Committee that unfair strikes where remedies are provided in the alternative in this way do not need to have this support.

      1907
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) discussed a situation where it would be wrong to think that the Clause would prevent a union from striking. If because of a primary strike, fair or unfair, at a given place, the work-people at another factory were confronted with a change of work because the second factory manager was going to support the management at the first factory, that again would not be unfair, because people striking at the second workplace would have a fresh and separate primary cause of dispute.
      Mr. Atkinson: What about the unregistered union point, to which the Solicitor-General was to return?
      The Solicitor-General: I have made it plain on these Clauses that the registered or unregistered union calling a secondary strike in support of an unfair objective is acting equally unfairly; but the official of the registered union is not, if acting within the scope of his authority.
      Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton we are not here challenging the principle of people banding together to assert rights. That is at the heart of collective organisation in industrial relations. However, we assert that the principle is not one that can prevail over all else so as to threaten or destroy the rights of other people in all circumstances. What we are saying is that it is certainly right for that principle to prevail for most purposes—for the overwhelming majority of purposes where the original cause of dispute is fair, and it is entirely right for borrowed strength to be used to that end; but not for all, not when the damage being done to that outside party—the innocent party; this trespasses on Clause 87 as well—is disproportionate to the scale and connectedness of the grievance which is provoking the primary strike. This is the balance we have tried to strike in Clause 87.
      In the examples the hon. Gentleman put to me, if work was being switched from one dockyard to another—say, from Devonport to Rosyth—then, without knowing the detailed structure of Her Majesty's Dockyards management as the hon. Gentleman does, if they were in the single management of one organisation the primary-struck employer would be
      1908
      one and the same throughout; it would all be part of the same primary strike.
      However, if the work was switched from one company to another company which was quite separate and distinct as a means of combating the strike at the primary place of strike, the second company could no longer be regarded as extraneous. It would by taking action—by taking work which would formerly have been done at the first dockyard—be acting in support of the first employer or his management. So, again, the unions would be free to strike in each of those situations.
      Therefore, we return to the reasonable situation, that in the area of strikes the calling of which we suggest to the Committee is unfair because alternative remedies are provided it should, and must logically be, equally unfair for there to be a supporting strike called in support of that unfair primary objective.
      Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster): Until the Solicitor-General made his speech I thought that I clearly understood what this debate was about and what this part of the Bill was about. When the Solicitor-General sat down I felt like the little Napoleon-like figure in the television advert who needs an Alka-Seltzer to unfizz. I wish someone would unfizz me after the Solicitor-General's speech.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) is not in his place. I understood, after listening to his speech, why there were only 20 people at his meeting in Doncaster last Friday evening. I could not help recalling while listening to him some words that Christ addressed to the lawyers. I am not given to quoting the scriptures, but it seems so very apposite on this occasion. [Interruption.] I will not talk of hell-fire and brimstone, though that might be applicable.
      I commend to the Solicitor-General and his lawyer friends the words of Christ—St. Luke, 11,46:
      "Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers."
      Christ also said—verse 52:
      "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and then that were entering in ye hindered."

      1909
      I can think of no more applicable or relevant words.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley): Christ was an agitator.
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East): He was a Socialist agitator.
      Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford): Has not the hon. Gentleman heard the relevant saying that the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes?
      Mr. Walker: I suppose that fits the hon. Gentleman equally who, no matter how authoritative he may be when theological matters are under discussion, I had not thought of as being an authoritative voice on industrial relations.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to go on and identify how he fits the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) into that context? The hon. Gentleman shares with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley the task of putting the Opposition's point of view on this Clause.
      Mr. Walker: I have always thought of the Bill as a theological matter. The responses I had evoked to my quotations from the scriptures shows how right I was.
      The Bill as a whole clearly turns into an unfair industrial action almost every weapon in the trade unionists limited industrial armoury. The phrase "unfair industrial action" is a euphemism which, although it deceives nobody, is clearly to be a breach of the law—a breach of the law which, in spite of what the Solicitor-General has repeatedly said, could in some cases at least expose individuals and trade unions to orders for contempt in the county court, with all the consequences that could flow from that.
      The Clause extends this very same vulnerability to any individual or trade union who directly or indirectly, deliberately or unwittingly, aid and abet the commission of any of these unfair industrial practices. I say—and here I echo what so many of my hon. Friends have said—that this is an enormous extension of the punitive provisions of the Bill, not least in the way it multiplies so many times the obnoxious effects of Clause 85.
      1910
      7.0 p.m.
      It is right that reference was made in the debate to Clause 87, because of the way in which that Clause is linked with and buttresses every reference to "unfair industrial practice" in the Bill, including that in Clause 87 itself. We challenge the validity of the whole concept of unfair industrial practice and its application in particular situations.
      The Solicitor-General said that Clause 86 is only to prevent strike action which is designed to support unfair industrial action. But it is not just about strike action. It goes much wider than that, bad enough as that would be. It refers to
      "calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike"
      and
      "organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike".
      In spite of the number of times on which the question has been raised, we have never yet been given an adequate explanation of what is meant by "irregular action short of a strike". There have been references to the so-called definition in Clause 148, but no more than that.
      When the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was speaking, I could not help reflecting that in his references to Clause 5(1) he might have helped the Committee better if he had addressed himself to the absurdity which arises when we take Clause 86 in conjunction with Clause 5(1), that part of Clause 5 which gives every worker the right not to belong to a trade union and makes it an unfair industrial practice for anyone to seek to prevent his exercise of that right. Why did not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend try to explain to us what will happen in the sort of situation which will almost certainly arise when people refuse to co-operate with the non-unionist, when, inevitably, they will say, "We will not work with such an antisocial individual. We will not engage in the normal industrial relationship which is so essential to the smooth functioning of industry"? In that situation, will those workers be culpable under Clause 86?
      The Solicitor-General says that he is aiming only at what everybody would consider to be the need to maintain a fair balance and to prevent people from

      1911
      participating in unfair action in industrial relations. My hon. Friends have given many examples culled from their deep personal experience of industry, citing disputes and various actions arising from those disputes which it would be difficult to describe as unjustified or unfair. I can think of no example given from this side of the Committee in relation to which I, as a former shop steward, should not have been prone to embark on exactly the sort of action which was described in such situations, and I do not think that the Committee would regard me as an unfair or unreasonable individual.
      Last night, I deliberately curtailed my remarks in winding up the debate, but I had in mind then a recent example which had come to my notice when I was a junior Minister in the Department of Employment and Productivity. I thought it significant then, and I think it relevant for the Committee's attention now. A building worker at a building site in Kent had been required by his employer to work on a platform which did not comply with the building regulations. He refused to work on that platform and encouraged his workmates to do likewise. The employer said that if he did not go back to his work and allow the matter to be resolved either through a visit from the building inspector or through the intervention of his union, he would be dismissed.
      Under that coercive pressure from his employer, that man returned to the platform and dissuaded his workmates from taking industrial action. Two hours later, he was dead, having fallen from the platform.
      In that situation, would it have been unfair industrial action if those workmen had gone on strike to compel their employer to do what he ought to have done and, in the event, save that man's life? It seems to me that under Clause 86 the employer would have been entitled to say, "Unless you return to work, I shall haul you before the court".
      The Solicitor-General: I repeat again the point which has been made many times. If ever there were a clear case in which the provisions of Clause 102 (3) would apply, the hon. Gentleman has just given it. It is inconceivable that a court
      1912
      faced with the employer in that situation—
      Mr. Heffer: But the man is dead.
      The Solicitor-General: —seeking to restrain that strike would not take the view that the cause of the strike was the employer's attitude. The one change which the Bill would make is that the man threatened with dismissal could with confidence know that he could appeal against that unfair dismissal, and he would not have felt obliged to go back to work. In that way, the change in the law would enable him to stand on his rights and reach a different conclusion.
      Mr. Walker: The Solicitor-General now tells us that the workman in that situation could console himself with the thought that, instead of having a straight choice between doing as he was told or being sacked, he would have a third option, the possibility that, if he refused to carry out the employer's instructions, he could eventually go to the court with some hope of succeeding. That would not console either him or me in such a situation. What I should have done would have been unhesitatingly, as a shop steward or not as a shop steward, to instruct—let alone advise—the work people on that site not to go upon that platform.
      The Solicitor-General: Absolutely right.
      Mr. Walker: I am glad to hear that, but what about the other advice which the Solicitor-General has just given us? He says that that man could now take into account the possibility of taking action in the Industrial Court. The hon. learned Gentleman makes the same error that all lawyers seem to make in assuming that work people will go to the courts with the readiness which they themselves go to pick up their fees. He seems to be unaware that the apparatus of the courts, whether the judicial apparatus set up under the Bill or the existing county courts and the rest, is an awesome apparatus from which ordinary people, very understandably, recoil.
      Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke): The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. In the sort of situation which he has outlined, what employer

      1913
      would seek to sue that man for compensation?
      Mr. Walker: Hon. Members opposite in this debate, as in so many others, show an alarming lack of familiarity with the realities of not only the functioning of industry but the psychological climate within which people work, the pressures to which they are subjected, and the way in which they normally respond to those pressures.
      Having given that example, I return once more to the question repeatedly pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. We are still waiting for a reply. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend put it to the Secretary of State:
      "Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify Clause 86, with regard to aiding and abetting, which hitherto has been a strictly criminal concept? Does it mean that the trade union which supports action under Clause 85 and turns a strike into an official strike is guilty of aiding and abetting and loses the immunity of the 1906 Act?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 979.]
      The essential point on which my hon. Friend seeks an answer is this. Suppose an unofficial strike begins and is caught as being an unfair practice under Clause 85, but is subsequently made into an official strike by the union. Does it cease to be an unfair industrial practice? If the Solicitor-General wants to intervene to give us a clear, unambiguous answer I shall readily give way. I want him to understand very clearly the importance of the point. In the engineering industry what I have described is not an exceptional rarity, but is part of the normality, the generality of the situation. With the frequent references to the number of unofficial strikes, the Government seem not to have understood that in engineering almost every strike, because of the negotiating procedure and trade union rules, must start off as unofficial. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, having understood that, will now give us the reply we have been waiting for since Christmas, I will allow him to intervene.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman referred to the occasion when his hon. Friend raised the matter the other day—
      Mr. Walker: Two months ago.
      The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I was about to say that his hon. Friend raised it on Second Reading two months ago. As a result of his doing so, we have looked again at the form of words in the Clause, because the function of hon. Members raising points in debate is for us to he able to examine them.
      If an unofficial strike under Clause 85 has already been induced, and thereafter the union makes it official, the union is not doing anything to aid and abet the inducing of the original unfair strike. The original unfair unofficial strike has already taken place, and nothing the union thereafter does aids and abets that.
      The point put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley in the debate on Second Reading was that the use of the words "aid and abet" had criminal overtones. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) made a similar point this afternoon. We were asked to look at the matter again. Our conclusion was that the use of those words makes it plain that the union doing that is not aiding and abetting. If we had replaced the phrase with civil words, such as "supporting or assisting", or something like them, the difficulty might arise. But if a person has induced the original unfair strike, any subsequent action making it an official strike is not an aiding and abetting of the inducing of the original strike.
      Mr. Walker: Does the original strike still remain an unfair industrial practice?
      The Solicitor-General: It is not the strike that remains an unfair practice. The point is that the original inducing by the unofficial leader of the first strike, if that be the case, is unfair. [Laughter.] There is no point in hon. Members saying "Ha, ha". It is a matter then for very great doubt as to whether employers would in many or any cases necessarily bring proceedings in respect of the originally induced strike. In any event, thereafter the action of the union in making it official does not amount to an aiding and abetting of the original inducing.
      Mr. Walker: Now we really find ourselves confronted with questions. I do not want to weary the Committee with repeated references to actual situations

      1915
      that arise within industry. But many of my hon. Friends will have been confronted with a change of practice arbitrarily and suddenly introduced without fair warning by an employer. They as shop stewards or workpeople will have come to the conclusion that an unsafe practice or a health hazard is being introduced, and they must make an immediate response, afterwards seeking ratification from their district committee. It seems that when they have said to the workpeople, "We advise you not to carry out the employer's instruction until we have contacted our district committee", they have thus initiated an unofficial strike and rendered themselves guilty of an unfair industrial practice. No matter what the district committee or even the employers' federation may subsequently say, no matter what the generality of opinion may be, it still seems that they have irreversibly committed something that is illegitimate, not to say illegal, under the Bill.
      The union having subsequently endorsed the action and given it an official stamp, the question arises whether it is not only the resources of the individual who induced that unfair industrial action that are exposed to the action for damages in the courts but whether the union's resources are also exposed. This is a new question. The Solicitor-General would have been well advised to apply himself to it. We keep turning over these stones in the Bill and exposing some very ugly things underneath.
      The change of emphasis on the Government's part should not go unnoticed. It used to be accepted that whether a strike was official or unofficial was a question entirely within the union's discretion and its rules, which could vary from union to union. Three or four unions could be involved in a strike that was unofficial under the rules of one union, and official under the rules of the next. So, in an identical situation, some members of the work group are guilty under Clause 85 and some, for exactly the same offence, are not. There used to be talked, much more logically, about constitutional and unconstitutional strikes. Now the Government have got back on the old band wagon of unofficial strikes and official strikes, and this is
      1916
      leading them into curious byways. They are getting lost on the way.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is fully aware of the point I want to make, but I make it to emphasise again to the Solicitor-General that within the engineering industry practically every strike, apart from a national strike called by the executive council, starts off as as an unofficial dispute but is possibly made official at a later stage, first by the district committee and then by the executive council. Will not it be the case now that a union such as the A.U.E.W., to protect itself, may have to make its rules such that a strike becomes official from the time the members take that action, because otherwise it is vulnerable right along the line?
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend accurately puts his finger on one of the inconsistencies of the Government's approach. Their theme has been one of strengthening the central official authorities of the unions against those whom they describe as the trouble-makers at the bottom, the shop stewards. They fail to recognise that an inevitable consequence of their approach will be to compel unions to alter their rules to give the shop stewards the authority that they have so far lacked. An inevitable by-product will be a strengthening of the hands of the shop stewards. Only in that way will unions be able to give the shop steward the necessary protection.
      Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend also pursue the point of what happens over a strike that was constitutional when it started but is then declared un-stitutional by the trade union executive. Is it totally legal one minute and the next minute illegal, and are people responsible for what happened before or what happened after?
      Mr. Walker: I would not attempt to reply to that very complex point off the cuff. My hon. Friend has put a matter for reflection on the great complexity of the industrial situation. Hon. Members opposite seem to assume that what is very complex is really very simple. It is nothing of the kind. The labyrinthine process that my hon. Friend has just described is part of the procedure that

      1917
      shop stewards must reconcile themselves to and work within every day of the working week.
      I suspect that the Committee is getting anxious to draw the debate to a conclusion, but I do not want to finish without referring to the Solicitor-General's reference to Clause 87. I do not want to transgress on what will no doubt be an interesting debate on Clause 87, but I remind the Committee that he stated that it was important not to interpret the provisions of the Clause, and, indeed, the Bill, too widely. But it is not a question of how we interpret it; it is a question of how the courts interpret it. They will not heed the Solicitor-General's honeyed words but the black and white of the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General says that he is not seeking to outlaw all sympathetic strikes. We await with eagerness and interest to see how he reconciles that statement with the sweeping and far-reaching provisions of Clause 87. That Clause clearly outlaws all strikes which lead to a breach of contract other than a breach of employment. Sympathy strikes, under Clause 86, even those that do not fall foul of the requirements of Clause 86—strikes that are in breach of contracts of employment—could often, and in many ways almost invariably, lead to a breach of commercial contract and will thus be caught under Clause 87. In effect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, "I am lying in wait with a double-barrelled gun. If I miss with the first shot I can use the second barrel."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) went to the heart of the matter. I echo what he said. By the provisions of Clause 86,
      the Government have at a stroke rendered unlawful a vast range of actions which have traditionally been part of the fabric of industrial relations for over a century. That may well be their intention, in spite of the silken words of the Solicitor-General, which implied that they were only suppressing practices which they regarded as anti-social and a deterrent to industrial efficiency. Whatever the Government may say, trade unionists and, I am sure, the whole Committee, will now be under no such illusions but will recognise that the Government's real purpose is to weaken drastically and dramatically the bargaining power of working people in industry.
      My hon. Friends in earlier debates, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone again today, raised the spectre of the corporate State. Let there be no mistake. The road on which the Government are embarked, as exemplified in these Clauses, is the path that has been trodden by every Fascist dictator this century. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Other Governments have shown that one can produce a quietness and passivity in industrial relations by removing the power and the strength of the workers to react against conditions which bear hardly on their lives. The Government are removing weapons which have traditionally been available to trade unions and trade unionists to fight for their cause—and this is the practice which has been carried out by every Fascist dictator in this century. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Clause.
      Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 250.

      Division No. 165.]

      AYES

      [7.24 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Body, Richard

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Channon, Paul

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Chapman, Sydney

      Astor, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Braine, Bernard

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylehone)

      Bray, Ronald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Brewis, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Bainiel, Lord

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Cockeram, Eric

      Batsford, Brian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Coombs, Derek

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Bell, Ronald

      Bryan, Paul

      Cordle, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

      Cormack, Patrick

      Benyon, W.

      Buck, Antony

      Costain, A. P.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Critchley, Julian

      Biffen, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Crouch, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Blaker, Peter

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

      Curran, Charles

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Raison, Timothy

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Dixon, Piers

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Redmond, Robert

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kirk, Peter

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Eden, Sir John

      Lambton, Antony

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lane, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Rost, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Farr, John

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

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fell, Anthony

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

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sharples, Richard

      Fidler, Michael

      Loveridge, John

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

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacArthur, Ian

      Simeons, Charles

      Foster, Sir John

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fowler, Norman

      McLaren, Martin

      Skeet, T, H. H.

      Fox, Marcus

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

      Fry, Peter

      McMaster, Stanley

      Soref, Harold

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Speed, Keith

      Gardner, Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Spence, John

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Sproat, Iain

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Madden, Martin

      Stainton, Keith

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Madel, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maginnis, John E.

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Marten, Neil

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Goorthart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Stokes, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Gorst, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Sutcliffe, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Tapsell, Peter

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Green, Alan

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Grylls, Michael

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

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gumtner, Selwyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Temple, John M.

      Gurden, Harold

      Moate, Roger

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)

      Molyneaux, James

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Money, Ernle

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trew, Peter

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      More, Jasper

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mudd, David

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Havers, Michael

      Murton, Oscar

      Waddington, David

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Walden, David (Clitheroe)

      Hay, John

      Neave, Airey

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Wall, Patrick

      Hicks, Robert

      Nott, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Hiley, Joseph

      Onslow, Cranley

      Ward, Dame Irene

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

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Orr. Capt. L. P. S.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Holland, Philip

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, John (Harrow, E.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Wilkinson, John

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Peel, John

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Percival, Ian

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hunt, John

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Worsley, Marcus

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      James, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Mr. Tim Fortescue and

      Jopling, Michael

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ashton, Joe

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Barnes, Michael

      Bishop, E. S.

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Barnett, Joel

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ashley, Jack

      Beaney, Alan

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      1920

      1921

      Booth, Albert

      Hattersley, Roy

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Palmer, Arthur

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Bradley, Tom

      Hilton, W. S.

      Pardoe, John

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

      Horam, John

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Pendry, Tom

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn James

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pentland, Norman

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hunter, Adam

      Prescott, John

      Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

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

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Janner, Greville

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Probert, Arthur

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

      Rankin, John

      Cocks, Michael(Bristol, S.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Cohen, Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Richard, Ivor

      Concannon, J. D.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Roper, John

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rose, Paul B.

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

      Judd, Frank

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Kelley, Richard

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kinnock, Neil

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

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Lambie, David

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lamond, James

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Latham, Arthur

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sillars, James

      Deakins, Eric

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Silverman, Julius

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Leonard, Dick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Arthur (W.Ham, N.)

      Small, William

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spearing, Nigel

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stallard, A. W.

      Driberg, Tom

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Dunn, James A.

      McBride, Neil

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Dunnett, Jack

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strang, Gavin

      Eadie, Alex

      McElhone, Frank

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Edelman, Maurice

      McGuire, Michael

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Taverne, Dick

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackie, John

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

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackintosh, John P.

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

      English, Michael

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tinn, James

      Evans, Fred

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Tomney, Frank

      Fernyhough, E./

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Torney, Tom

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

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

      Varley, Eric G.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marquand, David

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Foot, Michael

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

      Ford, Ben

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Forrester, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Wallace, George

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mendelson, John Watkins, David

      Weitzman, David

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wellbeloved, James

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Milian, Bruce

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Golding, John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Whitlock, William

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E,)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)

      Moyle, Roland

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Murray, Ronald King

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Malley, Brian

      Mr. Kenneth Marks and

      Harper, Joseph

      Oram, Bert

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Stanley

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oswald, Thomas

      Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

    Clause 87

      INDUSTRIAL ACTION AGAINST EXTRANEOUS PARTIES
      Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire): I beg to move Amendment No. 800, in page 62, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
      The Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are to take the following:
      Amendment No. 462, in page 62, line 18, at end insert:
      (2A) A company shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as an extraneous party in relation to an industrial dispute if—

      (a) it is a company associated to a company which is an employer who is a party to the industrial dispute, and

      (b) it has during the continuance of that dispute supplied goods or furnished services in lieu of goods or services which would.
      but for that dispute, have been supplied or furnished by the company which is a party to that dispute.

      Amendment No. 801, in page 62, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
      Amendment No. 463, in page 62, line 31, at end add:
      (4) For the purposes of this section two companies shall be taken to be associated one to another if one is a subsidiary of the other, or both are subsidiaries of a third company.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Sillars: In the course of these debates, the Secretary of State has been described as the Sorcerer's Apprentice. I regard the Solicitor-General as the Tory Party's friendly insurance agent. He is very adept with words. He has a beguiling tongue and all the skill and ability required of an insurance agent to sell a death policy as a life policy. The Bill which he is promoting, particularly Clause 87, and I am here concerned with subsections (2) and (3), is the death policy for certain traditional and basic rights which the trade union movement regards as essential for the legitimate conduct of its affairs.
      As with all insurance policies, the small print of the document must be read. I have said before that the clear intention of the Tory Party is to maim the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] We will see whether it is nonsense. Some parts of the document
      1924
      are fairly subtle. The right not to join a trade union seems on the surface to be reasonable, as does the establishment of the agency shop. Clause 61(3), which gives parliamentary licence to blackleg, appears to be on the surface to be reasonable. But on Clause 87(2) and (3) the fair and reasonable mask of the Tory Party starts to slip. This is where we get the more brutal application of the principle which the Tories have pursued since June of this year and before, and it is to damage, shackle, and inhibit the British trade union movement.
      I do not doubt that in his friendly way over the Dispatch Box the Solicitor-General will say that that is not true and that the Government are being fair and reasonable and that their intention is to strengthen and not weaken the trade union movement. The test of their sincerity lies not in the imposition of policing duties on officials of that movement, but on the one test of whether in a situation of industrial conflict their actions strengthen the workers involved. I am a great believer in the litmus test in politics. Any situation can be dipped to see whether the litmus comes out red or blue, and if the Industrial Relations Bill is given the political litmus test, it is very "blue", and subsections (2) and (3) are the brightest hue of all.
      We are bound to approach the Clause, as we approached all the others, with deep and profound suspicion. We believe that we are justified in that suspicion and that our accusations against the Tory Party of wanting to maim trade unions are fully justified and well founded. The Conservatives are primarily responsible for helping to create an environment of hostility against trade unions in British society. Anyone who doubts that should read reports of weekend gatherings of the Tory faithful.
      We have witnessed the hysterical outburst by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the T.U.C's document on inflation which every sensible person in the country thinks was a fair assessment of the problem and gave some indication of how to get out of it. Then there were the recent speeches in the Enfield, West constituency where the Tory candidate spoke of what he termed the arrogance of the trade unions. And we need go no further than the Young Tories conference where they were foaming at the mouth wanting to take away supplementary benefits from

      1925
      people who were on legitimate strike. Then there was the performance the Tory Party gave on the Consultative Document which gave less credence to the point of view of the T.U.C. than to the views of their friends in the B.M.A. Now we have the guillotine which is a contempt of working people.
      We should also remember the conduct of the Conservative Party during the General Election. This is where I come to the interjection from one hon. Gentleman who shouted "Nonsense" at the beginning of my speech. If at the General Election Labour supporters had asked for details of the sort which are now to be found in Clause 87(3) and we had told them that the Tory Party meant to impose agreements on workers who do not want them the reply of the Tory Party would have been "You are far too suspicious. Our motives are pure and clear. We have no intention on those lines." That is what they would have said on 17th June. But they have not said it on this Bill in relation to Clauses 35 to 40. The clear pattern of Conservative strategy comes out clearly in Clauses 87(2) and (3). This is part of the Government's attack on the trade union movement, and is blatantly pro-employer.
      The situation which will arise from the Bill is that workers are to be divided whereas employers are to be strengthened. Wedges are to be driven between workers on the shop floor since there are to be differences between registered and unregistered unions which will lead to the inability of one set of workers to help another. Even the rights of registered trade unions are to be impaired. Clause 87(2) and (3) will mean that the sympathetic strike will be ruled out. Indeed I suggest that any question of striking at all will for all practical purposes be ruled out. I shall come to that matter a little later.
      Clause 87(3)(a) will strengthen employers and give them protection where they are already united and subsection (3)(c) encourages the unity for industrial political purposes where those employers are not bound under paragraph (a). We seem to be reaching the stage of the growth of a private political industrial fund organised by employers for employers which is to be used by them at their discretion without any restrictions being put on the use of that fund. Are
      1926
      we to anticipate the situation in America since it would appear that American law is being brought into this country? By bringing in American law and practices this could lead to anti-trade union vigilantes financed by this fund to strike-break; and a new age of Pinkerton will arrive on the British industrial scene.
      Mr. Gower Mr. Gower rose——
      Mr. Sillars: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later since I shall be mentioning him. The situation could arise in Clause 87(3)(a) in which an associated employer could be instrumental in imposing an agreement under Clauses 35 to 40 and it is to this practice we most object. Men who have been bound by an agreement to which they have never agreed could not strike justifiably because that would be regarded as an unfair practice and they would be forbidden to engage in any sympathetic action against an associated employer.
      For a definition of "associated employer" we have to look forward to Clause 148(5) where we discover that the term will mean controlling employers, a situation which puts a different light on the words. The essential power of trade unions and the whole concept of trade union solidarity is being disrupted. The fiction is being introduced in Clause 87 that it will be the workers alone in an industrial dispute situation who would be regarded as being isolated and not part of a highly complex interrelated society and there will be no means for their colleagues to assist them. Then when the workers step into the real world situation and begin to ask their fellow workers for help in a dispute penalties will be imposed on the trade union.
      7.45 p.m.
      The Tory Party appears to me to want to have it both ways. The Government Front Bench spokesman quote Victor Feather in terms of the idea that one man's strike is another man's lay-off. Perhaps I could interpose the point of view that one man's strike can also be another man's protection. This is one of the reasons we in the unions do not get hysterical about strikes. In voicing their contributions from the Conservative benches, Tory Party spokesmen recognise the interdependence of our whole complex society. They then come to the fictitional part that one man's strike must

      1927
      not be actively backed by another man. They deny to the worker the reality of having to live in the real world. This is the denial to the worker brought about by subsections (2) and (3) although there is no such denial for the employers. They are to be allowed to live in a world of reality. They will be able to get help, assistance, guidance, and people to join with them in decision-making and association in the dispute in terms of complete impunity.
      We see from subsection (3,c) that employers by donating money to a fighting fund, which is what it will be, can play a key rôle in industrial disputes. They can inject cash into a dispute situation, they can buy labour and use it for strike-breaking. If that fund happens to be drained away because they decide to intervene in a dispute which they think is an essential matter of principle, in the long-term interests of employers they can evade Clause 87(3,c) as being directly or indirectly involved by writing an innocuous letter saying that, because of certain industrial disputes, the fund has drained away and they need another cash inflow. But they need not mention the dispute that is involved. We all know that in those terms a nod is as good as a wink. Again, they can get away with it with complete impunity.
      The employers by the terms of the Clause are to be given room for manœuvre which is to be denied by the trades union movement. We all know that they can act secretly and discreetly as they always have done at the golf club, or in telephone calls, or in contacts with their interlocking directorships which we all read about, whereas the workers are always forced to be absolutely open about what they require to do. We are required to have mass meetings, but no private telephone calls. The employers will be able openly to taunt workers with the combined strength and the use of the political industrial fighting fund in a unity sanctified by Parliament in Clauses 85 to 87 of the Bill.
      One of the ironies of the situation is that the political industrial fighting fund will come out of the pockets of the workers. The workers will be required by their efforts not only to put up the profits which will go in dividends or in
      1928
      directors' salaries or in investments. The workers will also be required to provide the profits for an employers' fighting fund. We are duty bound to ask the Solicitor-General whether money in that fund will be included in the information which employers will be required to give to the trade unions under some of the less objectionable Clauses of the Bill.
      We have objections to almost the whole of the Bill. They are not academic, as some hon. Members opposite have suggested. They are based on the experience of the creation of similar types of fund. I refer to the political funds of Aims of Industry and the Tory Party. One knows that that sort of fund is used to influence decisions. This Bill is almost part of the pay-off for the increased cash flow into the Tory Party coffers before 18th June. It is a pay-off for services rendered.
      The Labour Party and the trade union movement put a great deal of credence in the need for solidarity. In our view, a sympathetic strike is an essential weapon for working people. It is one of our weapons in a very limited armoury in the industrial relations situation. We do not use it terribly frequently. We intend to keep it for the basic principal industrial dispute, where something crucial is at stake. We do not use the sympathetic strike in every strike situation; we use it very rarely. But when we employ it we do so because there is something absolutely essential at stake for the whole trade union movement.
      Yesterday the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said—and I paraphrase his words—that if anyone could show him that the Tory Party would take away the worker's right to strike he would join us in the Lobby. He will have to join us in the Lobby in our fight against Clause 87 because subsection (1)(b), for all practical purposes, takes away the worker's right to strike. The Solicitor-General may deny that, but I do not think he can because the wording of subsection (1)(b)—and that is the crucial provision—is such that the worker's right to strike is taken away. The Government were bound to notice this. If they noticed it, we must ask why no Government Amendment to the Clause has been tabled to clarify the situation if they did not want to take away the worker's right to strike.

      1929
      Subsection (1) provides that any person—not a registered or unregistered trade union—who interferes
      "with the performance by another person of a contract"
      to which that other person is a party shall be indulging in an unfair industrial practice if the other person is an extraneous party. It does not refer to any person stopping the performance of work upon a contract. It merely refers to a person interfering with the performance of a person who is extraneous to the industrial dispute. This would appear to be a blanket provision against the worker's right to strike, whether he be in a registered or unregistered trade union.
      Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that yesterday I were referring to Clause 114, which provides that there shall be no order or injunction to
      "compel an employee to do any work or to attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work."
      Mr. Sillars: There are different ways of skinning the industrial worker. If he engages in an unfair industrial practice there are other ways of getting him back to work without obviously ordering him to do so. The hon. Gentleman's excuse will not do and he will have to join us in the Lobby because all strikes interfere with someone's ability to perform a contract. What about the postmen? What about the railwaymen, if they decide to strike? Their strikes are bound to interfere with the performance of an extraneous party. A railwayman going on strike in Cumnock, in Ayrshire, could well interfere with the performance of a person extraneous to the industrial dispute. In Wolverhampton—well, we all know about people in some parts of Wolverhampton.
      The Solicitor-General, if he agrees with my interpretation of the Clause, is bound to give us an assurance that he will undertake to amend it on Report.
      I said that the solidarity of the Labour movement in a sympathetic strike situation is absolutely vital. The Labour Party rejects the philosophy not only of this Clause but of the Bill and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it, although we shall get an opportunity to repeal it later.
      Mr. Nicholas Scott (Paddington, South): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sellars) on managing to stay in order while making remarks so irrelevant to the Clause.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): That is a reflection on the Chair.
      Mr. Scott: None was intended. I was simply congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his skill to indulge in what appeared at times close to a general tirade against the Bill and yet speak to the Amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman said that sympathetic strikes were rarely employed by the trade union movement. That may well be so. All that the Clause seeks to do is to ensure that it is not only rarely but fairly employed as a tactic, and I believe that Parliament has the right to lay down the circumstances which it regards as fair.
      The hon. Gentleman also attempted to show that subsection (2)(b) affects the right of workpeople to strike and withdraws the provisions of Clause 114. But subsection (1)(b) refers not to people taking part in a strike but only to the steps set out in Clause 86(2)(a); that is,
      "calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike",
      not taking part in a strike. Only those actions can conceivably come within Clause 87(1)(b).
      But the effect of the Amendments would be, first to allow the calling of strikes and other industrial actions in support of primary strikes which are unfair. Surely that is a nonsense. I can understand hon. Members opposite disputing whether any industrial action should be unfair, but, having once said that certain industrial action is unfair, to say that there could be sympathetic strikes in support of it is a manifest nonsense.
      Secondly, the Amendments would (allow industrial actions to be called against persons or firms not involved in the dispute. We can argue about precisely what "involved in a dispute" means and where one draws the line at the relationship between "actively involved" and "not actively involved". But the country widely recognises that so-called sympathetic strikes against firms which are totally uninvolved in the

      1931
      primary dispute are unfair, and Parliament should make it clear that they are unfair.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), speaking in a previous debate, complained that those involved in industrial relations would be inhibited because they would feel that they had to have regard not only to industrial relations factors but to the background of the law. All I can say is that it may be a factor to bear in mind, but all of us in our lives, certainly those engaged in commerce, have always to bear in mind the background of the law. If society decides it is right that the law should make a dividing line between what is fair and what is unfair, of course that is right. Parliament will decide in this instance, and surely it is not too great a burden to ask those engaged in industrial relations to bear this provision in mind, as they do others.
      I see no merit at all in these amendments, and I hope that they will be rejected by the Committee.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Kensington, North): I do not wish to make a speech which might be more appropriate to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, but in view of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), I think it should be made clear just to what extent this Clause as it stands will interfere with the fundamental right to strike. I do not think hon. Members opposite have fully understood this. At least I hope they have not, for I am prepared to credit them with the belief that they are preserving some of the vestiges of the right to strike.
      The Clause as it stands, in my view—and I am speaking with some experience as a lawyer engaged in industrial matters —would destroy the right to strike in almost all circumstances, notwithstanding that all the requisite notices have been given, and despite lengthy negotiations beforehand and regardless of the fact that the union is a registered union. The right of workers, and their unions, to withdraw their labour is effectively abolished by this Clause.
      The Solicitor-General in the debate on the last Clause said that it would be neces-
      1932
      sary in cases covered by the last Clause for the employer or person aggrieved, taking a claim for damages before the Industrial Court, to establish that the trade union knew of the specific contract which was involved. With respect to the Solicitor-General, this is completely contrary to the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Stratford v. Lindley (1964 —3 All E.R. 102). In that case it was held by Lord Reid (p. 106), after reciting the facts:
      "The respondents knew that barges were always returned promptly on the completion of the job for which they had been hired, and it must have been obvious to them that this was done under contracts between the appellants and the barge hirers. It was argued that there was no evidence that they were sufficiently aware of the terms of these contracts to know that their interference would involve breaches of these contracts; but I think that at this stage it is reasonable to infer that they did know that."
      I submit that, as the law is laid down by the House of Lords in that case, it is not necessary to establish that the union responsible for breaking the contract actually knew of it, if it is reasonable to infer that the union knew of the contract. If that is the case, then every strike is going to involve an unfair industrial practice, because every strike, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire pointed out, results in other parties who are completely extraneous to the dispute breaking their contracts. I think that probably every business in the country has had to break some contract or another by reason of the postal dispute.
      It is hypocritical for hon. Members opposite to say that the right to strike is being preserved, while at the same time they are declaring that every strike is unfair which involves any extraneous parties breaking their contracts, which the union ought reasonably to be capable of info ring existed. If that is so, then the right to strike is effectively abolished by this Clause. Every time there is a strike on a transport undertaking it involves breaches of contract between extraneous parties of contracts of which the union might well be held to have imputed knowledge, as in the decision in Stratford v. Lindley. Every time there is a strike on a building site between the employees of one contractor and his employers that strike will necessarily involve breaches of contract between other contractors on the site and the principal contractor and sub-contractors. Every time

      1933
      there is a strike in any firm in industry which is supplying components to another factory which in turn has contracts to deliver goods reprocessed to yet another concern, there will be a breach of contract. It must be obvious that it is likely to be established successfully before the Industrial Court that the union, particularly when a national union is concerned, knew that goods from factory A go to factory B and from there reprocessed to factory C, and that a strike at factory A affects factory B and factory C, and will involve a breach of contract between B and C.
      If this Clause is not substantially amended the right to strike is completely and effectively abolished. I sincerely hope that we shall hear from the Solicitor-General an assurance that this Clause will be fundamentally amended, before we get to Report.
      The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to intervene to curtail the debate but in order. I hope to clear the ground on which the discussion is taking place.
      The intention of this Clause is to replace and clarify the present rather imprecise area in which the courts are developing the right to restrain certain kinds of strike which can be described as secondary boycotts. At the moment such strikes are actionable in the ordinary courts in some cases. The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) mentioned one example, Stratford v. Lindley. Johnson Matthey is a more recent case. The Torquay hotel case is another case. There is a growing number.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hear, hear. It started with me.
      The Solicitor-General: That may be so. The hon. Member may have started it. I do not want to deny him his credit. That is something of which I was not necessarily aware.
      This Clause is not intended to deny the right to strike or of secondary boycott but to redefine it. It has to be read alongside the provisions of Clause 118 which remove litigation about the inducement of breaches of contract from the ordinary courts.
      So we are here concerned with the extent to which it should be an unfair
      1934
      industrial practice for certain kinds of secondary strikes to be called—secondary boycotts; by which I mean a strike designed and intended to procure breach by an innocent extraneous third party to a commercial contract. The intention here is that this should be done not by reference any longer to the maze of case law to which the Donovan Report referred, but only when it can be shown that somebody has intentionally set about securing or organising industrial action in order to induce a breach by another to produce the non-performance of a commercial contract.
      Beyond that, the right is only to be available, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) pointed out, when it can be said that the party who is being induced to break or not to perform a contract is extraneous, innocent, outside, not supporting the primary dispute.
      The Committee will no doubt, want to discuss the merits or the demerits of that concept in whole or in part, whether we have tried to draw correctly this definition of the areas within which getting innocent parties to break their contracts should be fair or unfair—whether that has been properly drawn. That is a matter which the Committee will want to debate.
      But there is one matter which both hon. Members opposite have already mentioned, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and the hon. Member for Kensington, North when they said that the wording, as it stands, of subsection (1)(b)—and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kensington, North—about interfering with the performance by another person of a contract, goes, or may go, too widely. That is certainly a point which has some force in it, and I undertake here and now that those words will be looked at.
      It is not our intention to do anything along the lines which the hon. Member for Kensington, North suggested, namely, to produce a situation in which the calling of strike action which results inevitably, accidentally and consequentially in the breaking of commercial contracts by the employer against whom the strike is called is proscribed, struck at or impedes by the Clause.

      1935
      The intention is that the calling, procuring or organising of industrial action should be unfair within the concept of Clause 87(1) if the purpose or principal purpose of the person calling, procuring or organising that action is to induce another person to break—the existing words of Clause 87(1)(a)—or not to perform a contract to which that other person is a party. But there has to be a deliberate intention of the person who is possibly being proscribed by the Clause to produce the breach or non-performance of the contract; in other words the situation that arose in the Torquay hotel case where the intention of the party striking or the strike-calling party was to procure a breach of the oil delivery contracts or, at the very least, non-delivery of the oil under the contracts. The important thing is that it should be the intended result of the secondary unfair strike that someone innocent of the primary dispute should be obliged to break or not perform his contract.
      That is clearly not the result of the wording as it now is, but I hope the Committee will accept from me that we do not want to waste our time in talking about a wrong form, we want to talk about the objective of the Clause.
      Mr. Heffer: The words will have to be changed.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member says that we shall have to change the words, and I accept that. Because the matter ranges more widely than this, the question is how far we should seek to describe a party as extraneous. It is plainly right that we should debate the scope of Clause 87 (2) and (3) before we come back to the Committee with an Amendment embodying what I have tried to tell the Committee.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am obliged for the assurance which the Solicitor-General has given. I hope that the Amendment will make it clear that it is necessary to establish the intent to break a specific contract, and that it will not leave the situation as it was left with Stratford v. Lindley, which I hope he will agree is also unsatisfactory.
      The Solicitor-General: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that
      1936
      I go as far as he does in saying that Stratford v. Lindley or the other cases were wrong. The courts have said that it is not necessary for the person calling the strike to know the precise form and terms of a given contract if he plainly knows or must know of the existence of a contract of that kind. We do not want someone to be in jeopardy under the Clause if something which he knows not of or suspects not of is accidentally, consequentially broken. I undertake to look at the formulation of the knowledge point in the Stratford v. Lindley, the Torquay hotel and other cases to make certain that this is clearly met.
      Mr. Gower: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that valuable promise. Will he study the wording so that it will comprehend a case where the almost inevitable result of the action would be a breach of contract?
      8.15 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: That is the point which I was seeking to keep open, where the almost inevitable result is breach of contract where the strike-calling party must know or be taken 110 know. I shall of course have regard to the words drawn to my attention by the hon. Members for Barry (Mr. Gower) and Kensington, North. I am not seeking to mislead the Committee by saying that the undertaking I gave alters the substance of the intention of the Clause as hon. Members opposite are entitled to criticise it. I am merely trying to make clear, for the assistance of the Committee, the ground we are debating, which is the proposition that certain people wholly innocent of a primary industrial dispute are entitled not to be persuaded by industrial action to break contracts when they have done nothing whatsoever to intervene in or to support the party to the primary dispute. It is that which the Committee will want to debate, and I hope the Committee will forgive me for having intervened to deal with this narrow point.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am not clear whether the Solicitor-General has given way and, if he has, to whom he has given way.
      The Solicitor-General: I am not seeking to curtail discussion. I will first give

      1937
      way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery): I want to understand the Solicitor-General's point about the question raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, North. Is it the intention of the Government that if anybody is to be guilty under the Clause he must be shown to have a precise intention, and that it will not be left to such words as "in contemplation or furtherance" but will be a precise mens rea that is required?
      The Solicitor-General: The reason for including the words "in contemplation or furtherance" is to confine the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to an industrial disputes matter, but the point which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery put is an important one distinct from that. Hon. Members have already put several different shades and nuances on this. The precise intention, with precise knowledge to secure the breach of a given contract, is putting it at its highest, and the hon. and learned Member will know several cases in which it is plain that the person inducing the strike, so it has been held, knew or must have known of the existence of a particular contract although he may not have seen the document in writing. I do not think that one can be required to go as far as that, but all the points made, including the one made by the hon. and learned Member, will be borne in mind.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough): I have much sympathy with the Solicitor-General's point about an innocent party being pushed to break a contract. Does he recognise the difference between using a strike to prevent a party entering into a contract and using a strike to break a contract? I will perhaps expand this if I say a word on my Amendment which comes in this group. There is a difference between preventing the carrying out of a contract and preventing a contract being entered into.
      The Solicitor-General: That is a valid point, but the Clause as drawn does not seek to proscribe a strike which is designed to prevent a contract being entered into. It is designed to prevent a strike which is intended to secure the breach or non-performance of a subsisting contract. I do not think that any case law goes so
      1938
      far as to make unfair the prevention of someone from entering into a contract, and it is not the Government's intention to go that far. It would be a completely new principle in this field of law, as in any other, to say that people should be unable to take action to prevent the creation of new contractual relationships, so the point of the hon. Member is already borne in mind in the Clause.
      I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
      Mr. McNamara: Can the——
      The Deputy Chairman: Order, Mr. Hugh Jenkins.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): It would be——
      Mr. MacNamara: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. Was the Solicitor-General giving way on a point of information or was he concluding his speech?
      The Solicitor-General: I was trying to deal with such points as have been put to me. It seems that the hon. Member whom I identified as a questioner has identified himself as a would-be speaker.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Could I, with respect, ask you, Miss Harvie Anderson, to suggest to the Solicitor-General that he would be well advised to follow the usual custom when he is giving way, namely, to say that he is doing so and to whom he is giving way? That would help the Committee and the Chair.
      The Deputy Chairman: I am sure that it was not the intention of the Solicitor-General to confuse the Committee, but I think that hon. Members would agree that in the event Mr. Hugh Jenkins has the floor.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am grateful to you, Miss Harvie Anderson, for giving me the opportunity of putting a question to the Solicitor-General which I feel must be prefaced by some explanation. I felt it improper to intervene with my question because the introduction that would be necessary before coming to the question would be so long that you would have said that it was not an intervention.

      1939
      The Solicitor-General has said that he is dissatisfied with the Clause. I want to tell him that his dissatisfaction is only one-hundredth or possibly one-thousandth of the dissatisfaction felt with the Clause on this side of the Committee. I believe that my hon. Friends will feel that only the acceptance of the Amendment which seeks to dispose of this section entirely will be a satisfactory outcome and that no modification of the subsection will meet the case.
      On the other hand it is a welcome sign that the Solicitor-General should have seen that what he is proposing could have serious consequences, going beyond even the Government's intentions. There are certain other circumstances not covered. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he proposes to modify the Clause so that people who are coincidentally affected are not brought within its range. What of the circumstances in which people, through trade union solidarity, are brought quite intentionally into a position of industrial dispute?
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite underestimate the effects of taking one action upon such areas. They have seen already, and it was a surprise to many of them, that as the result of a previous Clause they have restricted the freedom of the Press. Similarly, as a result of this Clause—and I want to know whether the Amendment will cover it—traditional trade union solidarity will be seriously undermined.
      I will give an example of what is a fairly frequent occurrence. Two or three times a year a situation arises in the film studios when technicians and actors are unpaid. The reason is the chaotic financing of the film industry, which has always been done on the basis that films are seldom made by the parent company. Generally speaking, even very major films are made by small companies created for the purpose with small capital, sometimes only £100.
      The consequence of that is that in the event of a default in payment at the end of the film—unfortunately, this happens occasionally—the situation arises that the film is complete but payment is not made. In these circumstances it is not unusual for the Association of Cinematographic Technicians to give an
      1940
      instruction to workers in a film laboratory not to continue with the processing of this film until after the other people have been paid. Consider the situation that arises here. Here we do not even have the same employer because the film is made by one employer and by this time is the property, probably, of the distributor.
      Hon. Members opposite have not given due weight to the effect of trade union solidarity. The example I have given can no doubt be matched elsewhere in industry. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have other examples of situations in which workers, on a sheer fraternal basis, possibly having in mind some long-term advantages—or the avoidance of disadvantages—will take this kind of action. In this case these people take such action because it is the only action which can be taken in the circumstances to ensure that those who made the film are paid. Often payment is not made by the company which owes the money, but by the distributor who has purchased the film. This is because he has a product and he wants to sell it. If he does not pay there is the possibility that his film will never get on the market. What is the situation here?
      Here is a trade union giving official instructions to a group of members not directly involved in the original dispute. In some instances the instructions will be given not even on behalf of the members of the same union but on behalf of members in other unions. A decision of this sort has been taken in the Federation of Film Unions and all the parties are a party to the decision. Who is responsible? Who can be proceeded against under the Bill, and what is the consequence of that action?
      I would like the Solicitor-General, when he returns to the defence, to tell us in these circumstances who is caught by the Bill. Is it the workers as trade unionists or the trade union officials, and if it is, then of which union? Will he also say whether, once the changes to the Bill have been made, this action will be impossible to operate? If this is the case, then certainly in this industry he will create more trouble than he imagines because it will then be necessary for the trade unions to take alternative action which will have repercussions far more severe, not only for the unions but for the employers.

      1941
      8.30 p.m.
      Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may have wondered why the Federation of Film Producers decided to express its doubts and fears about the Bill. The reason is not that its members are not perhaps contributors to Conservative Party funds and that they do not approve of the Government's action in principle. The reason is that members of the federation are like very many other employers; and this is where disillusionment is beginning to set in among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even they are beginning to doubt the validity of the Bill.
      The general proposition has been put out to the Press by the Conservative Party that something should be done about the trade unions, and it has gained general assent. Hon. Members have made these broad statements in their election addresses, and they have gained general consent. However, when they come to spell out these matters in detail in Clauses like this one, they begin to see that, not only for employees but for employers, something is being eroded which is precious to the trade unions, to employers and to the country as a whole.
      I hope that the Solicitor-General will say that no Amendment or alteration is necessary because he thinks that the whole Clause should be deleted.
      Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham): At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that the whole of Clause 87 should be deleted. However, I think that it is one of the most fundamental Clauses in the Bill, in which very important issues are at stake.
      The present position on strikes is set out clearly in paragraph 888 of the Donovan Report. That says:
      "At the present time, however, it is a familiar aspect of trade disputes that trade unions not only call out their members on strike but also endeavour to exert additional economic pressure on the employer in dispute by sealing off his sources of supply of materials or his outlet for sales, or both: and unless unlawful means are used to secure these ends, such action is permissible."
      Surely we are now debating whether such action ought to be permissible.
      I hope that I can be considered a reasonable man who can see both sides of a case. Earlier in this Committee I sup-
      1942
      ported the Opposition on one Amendment. But, however hard I try, I cannot see any justification for sympathy strikes. If employees have a dispute with their management, clearly they are entitled to withdraw their labour. That is a formidable weapon, though it has been written down by hon. Gentlemen opposite who suggest that we are eroding the weapon. It is a weapon which can force employers into bankruptcy. Why should trade unions have an additional right to persuade the suppliers of materials to a factory to stop delivering their goods?
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman has just read paragraph 888 of the Donovan Report. Perhaps he will refer to paragraph 900, which is the Commission's conclusion on the very passages to which he has referred. The last sentence reads, having regard to all that has gone before:
      "… we think that the second limb of section 3 should be retained as part of our Statute law."
      Mr. Awdry: Those of use who have attended these debates realise that some hon. Members adopt some parts of Donovan—[Interruption.] That is a perfectly fair point. Neither side is using Donovan as its bible. I was trying to establish the facts, and I draw a different conclusion from Donovan.
      Suppliers of materials to a factory who have no quarrel with the factory are persuaded, often with a good deal of threatening, to take action against the management of the factory. I believe that that is an abuse of power. It is an unpleasant weapon and it savours of bullying. It offends against the fundmental principles of justice, and it is a feaure of industrial action today which offends the general public more than any other.
      The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made no attempt to justify the sympathy strike on its merits. I have always understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to promote the principles of justice. These principles, surely, involve the protection of the rights of the individuals and of companies and businesses.
      Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the following proposition. As I see it, under

      1943
      the Bill the Government are giving freedom to non-unionists on the same basis as it is given to unionists. In other words, they are given the right not to belong to a trade union, just as trade unionists have the right to belong to a union. In the circumstances, the Government are moving towards the position where blacklegs can go into a factory during an industrial dispute. In those circumstances, Clause 87 becomes very important to trade unionists. The only protection which trade unionists on strike will have against their own blacklegs is to try to prevent supplies going into the factory where the blacklegs are operating against probably the majority of the employees.
      Mr. Awdry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of developing this point.
      It is wrong and contrary to the principles of justice that employees having a dispute with a particular firm should be allowed to try to persuade and threaten other people who have no dispute with that firm not to deliver supplies. It seems to be an evil.
      I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not support me on this point, because they are keen to look after the rights of individuals. Yet these people and their businesses are threatened by outside forces.
      Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose——
      Mr. Awdry: —who have no contractual relationship with them. I claim that we should be thinking of protecting those people and their businesses.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point about the protection of the individual. May I change that round and consider the position of the person engaged in an industrial dispute who is in fact on strike and a third party enters into a relationship with the employer to supply goods or produce so that he can fulfil his contract. The other person then says to his mates who work in that other firm, "Withdraw your labour. If you do not, your employer will be interfering with my right to strike." At that moment he cannot fail to be interfering with the other employer, nor can he under the Bill.
      1944
      There is no equal balance between the two.
      Mr. Awdry: This is becoming an interesting philosophical discussion. My view is that the employee is entitled to withdraw his labour from the employer, but not to go beyond this and to bring pressure on other people supplying goods to break their contracts. I do not think that it would be helpful to take this philosophical discussion any further. The alternative to the Bill is a kind of jungle warfare in which the combatants in any dispute are no longer just the parties to it but anyone whom the unions can persuade to join in.
      This may conform to the idea of solidarity, and we have heard a lot about solidarity. It may conform to the motto, "Let the workers unite." However, it does not lead to justice. In deciding how to frame the Clause we should be thinking of justice more than anything else. Therefore, I believe that the Clause is right.
      Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman talks about the innocent outside employer. May I ask him to address himself to the Amendment, which is designed to deal with the Government's definition of an innocent outside employer. Included in that definition is an associated employer with close financial connections and even an employer contributing to an indemnity fund. Where is the hon. Gentleman's innocent employer in all that?
      Mr. Awdry: The right hon. Lady may have a good point on detail. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire and other hon. Members who have spoken have gone much further than taking Committee points. They have talked about solidarity. They have raised the entire concept of sympathetic strikes. However, the right hon. Lady may have a point. If the Clause is not correctly drafted, my hon. and learned Friend will certainly look at it, because he said that he would. We are dealing with the main principle of sympathetic strikes. Hon. Members opposite have said that they would like to throw out the whole Clause, and it is that issue on which I have been speaking.
      Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I should like to start on the

      1945
      narrow point before broadening out to the issue of solidarity.
      Clause 87(2) makes it quite clear that it is an unfair industrial practice for any person, in furthering an industrial dispute, to interfere with the performance by another person of a contract to which that other person is an "extraneous party." What do we mean by "extraneous party"? We find that
      "a person shall be regarded as an extraneous party … if he is not a party to that dispute, and he has not … taken any action in material support of a party to it."
      What is "material support"? We find that if he is an associated employer it gains him exemption. We then have to ask: what is an associated employer? We have to turn many pages of the Bill to find that definition, but we eventually find that
      "For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act 'associated employer' shall be construed accordingly."
      That is marvellous! There can be a strike in one firm, and under the provisions of the Bill it is not possible to bring pressure on the other firm because it is associated. Yet the two firms can be under common control and can have a common financial interest.
      We can see the break-up of firms into associated companies, which would mean that the range of industrial action would become very narrow. That does not conjure up the image of an innocent party. One individual can own several companies. He may have a direct financial interest in every one of them. In one of those companies a dispute may break out. He decides to stand firm. He can afford to do so, because he may be supported by the receipts from 19 other plants. He will have those receipts and will be able to carry on the fight against the workers in one isolated factory. I shall refer to loyalty in a moment. That is the nub of the question of bringing about parity in bargaining situations.
      Even under present regulations a worker who goes on strike will have to subsist on about £9 a week for himself, his wife and, perhaps, two kids. In that situation he is being asked to fight an employer who may be able to take advan-
      1946
      tage of the returns from 19 factories. That is not equality of bargaining. It is precisely because of the existence of inequality of this sort that 19th century employers decided that trade unions should be granted some immunity before the law.
      The issue before us is clear. This is an attempt completely to change the balance of power between the trade union and the employer. [Interruption.] It will not be brought to parity. How can we talk of parity when postmen are on the streets in receipt of £9 a week to support them in their struggle, while the Deputy Chairman of the Post Office continues to live in comfort and continues to say, "No"? Is that parity? Does parity exist in a situation when postmen receive £9 a week while the State puts up however many millions of pounds it likes in the fight against them? If it is, it is a strange parity. I know which side I would rather be on in a dispute of that sort.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Gower: Exactly the same parity obtained a few years ago under a Labour Government.
      Mr. Golding Mr. Golding Under the Labour Government many of us disputed the contention that the balance of power had shifted. This we know from our common experience. In view of these Clauses and the definition, it is clear that hon. Members opposite must ponder carefully before deciding not to support the Amendment.
      The principle of loyalty has been mentioned. The traditional difference between the trade unions and the employers has been that whereas employers have had employers' associations we have had a trade union movement in which the doctrine of obligation has gained considerable ground. This is because we do not believe that in the industrial situation today there can be innocent third parties, because every wage claim and settlement has an implication for other settlements. Day by day and week by week the Government Front Bench tell us that each settlement has an implication for others.
      It is very difficult to define who is and who is not a party to a dispute. The Clause would remove from trade unionists the freedom c: the worker to withdraw his labour if he does not like the use to which his products are being put. In the

      1947
      trade union movement our relationship to work is not just that of a contract of doing work for a certain sum of money. We have to be concerned with the use of the products.
      It is reasonable for men who object to the use to which the employers put their product to say to the employer, "We are stopping work." This is true in the present Post Office dispute. The failure to distribute oil to a Torquay hotel has been mentioned. There are telephone exchanges which will face serious difficulties in the near future because oil is not being supplied to them. I would defend the right of the Transport and General Workers' Union members who are refusing to deliver that oil, because they are constantly told that the outcome of the postmen's dispute will have an effect on the wages of all workers.
      We are constantly being preached at that wage settlements are not arrived at in isolation. How can the Government preach that at one minute and talk about settlements being taken in isolation at another?
      On the Post Office dispute in another respect, it is possible for trade unions to have a vital interest in the outcome of negotiations without their being parties to a particular dispute. The U.P.W. is in dispute with the Government over the pay of postmen, telephonists and counter clerks. The union I represent—the Post Office Engineering Union—is not a party to the contract, and it is not for us to say whether the percentage arrived at in negotiation is right or wrong, but we are concerned about the principles being settled during the dispute. The Post Office says that what matters is not the percentage but the principles of pay.
      The Post Office thus widens the interest in the dispute away from the U.P.W. to all the unions concerned in the Post Office, because they have a direct interest in the principles of pay established. Our interests are vitally bound up in the outcome of the dispute.
      The Government are repeating the Post Office assertion that the union will not go to arbitration. Other unions would be upset if the principles of pay for the entire Post Office staff were settled by arbitration. Moreover, it is not correct to make the broad claim that the U.P.W.
      1948
      agreed to go to arbitration. All the Post Office unions agreed to go into the public Corporation on certain understandings set out in a White Paper, including an assurance that the Government would expect of the employer that industrial relations would be even better in the public Corporation than they had been in the old Post Office. We went in on that undertaking. The unions signed an agreement. There has been argument about whether it is ambiguous.
      No union has been to arbitration about the principles of settling pay. Those principles have been established, and the arbitration court has been asked only to decide what percentage awards were just and desirable within the context of agreed principles of settling pay.
      Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Have any of the unions been to mediation?
      Mr. Golding: No, because, first, in the past there were agreed principles for settling pay which had been determined by the Tomlin and Priestley Commissions after years of study and work. There was no need to go to a mediator; neither side had said unilaterally that it was changing the principles of settling pay. Second, an arbitration court had been established.
      To return to the main theme, it is difficult to determine who is a party to an agreement. It would be much fairer, in my view, if two additional points were made: first, that no employer be given exemption if he has either financial or physical control; and, second, that trade unions which have a direct interest in the outcome of negotiations should themselves be entitled to take action.
      The Government's policy is to relate one wage claim to the next—X minus 1, X minus 2, and X minus 3. Given that policy, each union in the public sector must have an interest in the settlement of any dispute. If the Government intend to create a situation in which a certain formula is to be applied, and if there is to be parity of bargaining between workers and employers, the workers must be free to act in any dispute which they think will vitally affect their interests.
      Mr. Awdry: The logic of that is that any pay dispute could lead to a general strike. Everyone is interested in the public sector, says the hon. Gentleman, so if there is a pay dispute it is fair enough

      1949
      for all the unions to join in and call a strike. That cannot be right.
      Mr. Golding: Hon. Members opposite are leading me into difficulty, Miss Harvie Anderson, tempting me into philosophical arguments which you would rule out of order. There is no logic in what the hon. Gentleman says. If 100 per cent. of workers were in the public sector, that would be right, but, of course, it is not so. The Post Office Engineering Union has not the same interest in the Ford dispute. We know that, whatever the productivity at Ford Motor Company, however bad the cars which it produces—it has just sold me a bad one—the workers will get their increases because they are in the private sector and because they are in a more powerful position—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to restrict this debate, as all hon. Members who have read the Amendments will recognise, but I hope that, having been allowed the latitude which is necessary for our present purpose, hon. Members will not take overmuch advantage. We have been straying very far in the last few minutes. I appreciate that the hon. Member who has the Floor thinks that he was led astray by an intervention, but, though he is not yet strictly out of order, he is very near it. I hope that he will come back more closely to the Amendments.
      Mr. Golding: I accept your rebuke at once, Miss Harvie Anderson. I saw the danger when the hon. Gentleman rose to intervene. It is difficult to remain within order on these matters.
      Our objection to the Clause as it stands is of vital importance, vital to the essence of the Bill. I do not believe that the Bill is directed so much to the removal of strikes, or unofficial strikes, as to the transfer of power from shop floor to managers and the professional class. Clause 87, I believe, is one key to the Government's strategy in this respect. They are trying to do what managers traditionally have done; that is, divide the working class, take them section by section, and then, having done that, deal with the workers in weak groups, in that way gaining the domination which traditionally they have been able to hold because of their ownership of economic power.
      [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]
      9.0 p.m.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is very interesting that men who are equally alert and equally sincere look at the same thing and come to such diametrically opposite views. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggested that the Bill was moving away from the parity of bargaining strength. I believe that it brings us nearer real parity than we have been for half a century. The words of the Bill substantiate my point of view, but the lion. Gentleman is just as sincere and sees it differently.
      Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have a lot of sympathy with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who has chastised her hon. Friends in a Friendly way for not running the Committee as it should be run. She is right, and I do not give way to the hon. Gentleman because of this question of procedure. We discuss the principle on Second Reading and to some extent again on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". At this stage we should not be on different sides. The principle has been settled, and now our job, within the general scheme that we have either accepted or have had foisted upon us, is to try to make the Bill as good as we can. The right hon. Lady was trying to keep her hon. Friends within this stage, and I want to try to keep within it. If we do, the Parliamentary Committee system is pretty good and does a good job.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others who follow him will confine themselves to this job, being good Committee men. I want to do so. It is obvious that we shall get the Bill on the Statute Book, but no one suggests that the words first printed are perfect. That is why we share minds and experiences within the general framework of the Bill to make it as good and acceptable as possible.
      I have a complaint against the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He used the very example that I wanted to use. It is well founded, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General

      1951
      will heed it. My Amendment No. 462, which I shall not move—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On further consideration, I do not think that the words I put down are good——
      An Hon. Member: They are excellent.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the light of the explanation given by my hon. and learned Friend, it would not be appropriate to ask him to accept those words.
      Now I shall be a good Committee man. I want my hon. and learned Friend to try before the Report stage to find better words than mine to face up to the situation put by the hon. Member for Putney. In the film industry a £100 company can hire technicians and artists and fail to pay them, or owe them part of their payment. Being a small company with nothing to lose, it can go into liquidation, leaving those technicians and artists high and dry. The company has the commodity in the can. It has the film that the technicians and artists have created. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can find words to allow for the processors of the film not turning it into a saleable commodity until the company has settled its debts to the technicians and artists. He would not be weakening the general appeal of the Bill, and he would be plugging up a little hole which is disadvantageous and unfair.
      Mr. McNamara rose—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: I hope that I am setting an example of brevity that others will follow. When a Committee is dealing with a matter like this, sugar is quite a potent weapon. I say to hon. Members opposite; use a bit of sugar instead of all that vinegar. We have a Solicitor-General answering these debates who is sincere, knows his job and wants to make this a good Bill. Hon. Members should stop being so antagonistic about it. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was right when he said that the Opposition were overreacting. Hon. Members opposite have lost the principle. The Bill is going to be put on the Statute Book. Let them help make it a better Bill by being good Committee men.
      Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. Will you protect the Committee
      1952
      from this humbug and direct the hon. Gentleman back to the Clause?
      The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.
      Mr, Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. I beg to give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall seek to move Amendment No. 462, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
      The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment has not been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means for a vote.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. It has been selected.
      The Temporary Chairman: It has been selected for discussion, not to be moved.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. The Amendment is on the Notice Paper, and I understood that if hon. Members wish to do so an Amendment on the Notice Paper can be moved.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. Is it not the case that one can move an Amendment only if one has attached one's name to it?
      The Temporary Chairman: It is correct that an Amendment which appears on the Notice Paper in Committee can be moved by any hon. Member. But it can be moved only with the permission of the Chairman, and this Amendment has not been selected to be moved.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has demonstrated what I call a saccharine paternalism towards the Committee, and it is to be hoped that in future when he addresses us he will take his own advice to heart.
      I agree broadly with the principle stated by the Solicitor-General on this Clause, because there are dangers—and indeed, there have been examples—of great injustices being caused to independent and entirely innocent parties in disputes because it is thought that they should be involved so as to broaden the industrial front. They often suffer severely in the process. I am entirely

      1953
      with the Solicitor-General in desiring to give protection to that kind of person. I also agree with him that there are a number of decided cases—a labyrinth of cases—and that it would be a good thing if a clear position were to be enunciated and an end put to the disputes which arise from these causes.
      Having said that, I am not at all convinced that the Clause is not drawn far too broadly. For example, it seems to me that the very concept of "extraneous party" is difficult to accept. If one is in a dispute, one is a party to a dispute. The very words "extraneous party" are self-contradictory. A person or association is either a party to the dispute or extraneous to the dispute.
      Subsections (2) and (3) are very complicated. It would have been better for the unions if they had not existed and Clause 87(1) had read as it does but with the substitution of the words, "other person is a party or is not a party in relation to that industrial dispute". If the wording were in that form, it would be much better than it is now. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to have in mind a kind of protection to enable parties who are perhaps associated with companies involved in a dispute not to be drawn in. This is a crucial Clause and there is no doubt as to its wide ambit as drawn.
      If there is an industry-wide dispute in which some firms are involved in association while producing the same kind of goods, but not in association with other companies, and there are union workers employed in each, the union workers employed in a company not associated with the others would be in breach if they took strike action. It is difficult to see how the Clause as drawn cannot work considerable injustice.
      I say "as drawn", but we can consider the Clause only as drawn. The history of Parliament shows how the intentions of any Government are different from court decisions later, when the words enacted by Parliament are interpreted, and one sees how often right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Members and others on the Government Front Bench, of whatever party, have been found to be wrong.
      The words of the Clause are far too wide, and I should support an Amend-
      1954
      ment for the deletion of subsection (2), because the Clause does not carry out the intention as stated by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given an absolute undertaking about one matter, and, as I understand his present mood, he is prepared to look again at the whole Clause with a view to introducing different words to limit the intention he has stated. I do not think that any fair-minded person could dispute the intention he has delimited, but the words of the Clause, which is all the Committee has to consider, are so wide as to be likely to wreak injustice.
      The Solicitor-General: The Committee is plainly anxious to move to the "Clause stand part" debate, and I should like to deal more generally with the Amendments.
      I begin by taking up a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He suggested that the industry-wide strike on terms and conditions of employment might be caught automatically by the Clause. Quite apart from what I have been looking at, the structure of the Clause, I suggest that it is not likely or possible that that would happen, because the Clause is not aimed at anyone who induces breaches of contract of employment.
      If a sympathy strike throughout an industry takes place because of the claim by the workers in one part of it, a fair strike about their terms and conditions of employment, and the other workers throughout the industry join in, someone inducing them to break their contract of employment would not come within the Clause. Only if the person inducing the sympathetic strikers throughout the industry-wide strike were doing so with a view to securing breaches of contract other than contracts of employment would the Clause begin to bite.
      I take the point that the Clause as drafted might inadvertently catch that, and that is why I have undertaken to look at it again, but it is certainly not the intention to prescribe calling or inducing strikes by other people throughout an industry simply because that involves them in breaking their contracts of employment; it is only if the secondary strikes are specifically directed to bringing about a breach of contract other than a contract of employment, and that is

      1955
      what the Clause is directed at. The position does not arise if the respondent can show that the party whose contract is being broken is not extraneous to but is supporting the original strike.
      9.15 p.m.
      To deal with some of the particular points and examples which have been put to me, the important point to emphasise is that subsection (3) is saying that a person shall not be regarded as having taken supporting action by reason only that he is an associated employer, or member, of the same employers' organisation, and so on. It is not asserting that associated employers are automatically to be regarded as extraneous. All that is asserted is that the mere fact of association and common membership of an employers' association does not in itself establish that he is taking materially supporting action. Of course, a member of the same federation or the same group of employers would immediately become a supporting party if taking action in support of the employer primarily struck against. It is here we try to draw the line between the wholly innocent party away from a dispute altogether and people who are reasonably and legitimately involved.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) raised the question of the relationship between the Post Office Engineering Union and the U.P.W. and the question of how far any supporting action might or might not be fair under the Bill. That, again, would not be affected by this provision. We start off with a fair primary strike by the U.P.W. about its new wage bargain, and if anyone sought to persuade the members of the P.O.E.W. to strike in support of that, that persuasion would be directed not to particular breaches of particular contracts by the Post Office but to persuading it to undertake a sympathy strike in support of the fair primary strike. There will be no question of that being caught by this Clause or in any other way.
      The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)—and my hon. Friend the Member Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), though on a slightly different tack, but in general along the same lines—put an example to me of a situation which is not unfamiliar in the motion picture industry. The answer is that if under the present law officials of A.C.T.A.T. were to persuade
      1956
      the work people of the film processing company to break their contracts of employment with a view to procuring a breach by the film processing company of its processing contract, then, even with the law as it now stands, and subject to the way in which they did it and the way in which the particular facts fitted in with the maze described in the Donovan Report, the procurement by union officials of a breach of the processing contract could now quite probably be actionable and restrainable under the present law.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In theory.
      The Solicitor-General: In theory. It is a situation in respect of which actions have been brought, though not, so far as I know, in that particular situation.
      The same could well be true of Clause 87(3) as drafted. The present position is that the people calling such a strike as individuals, though not the union, could be found liable under the present law. Under Clause 87 as drafted the people calling the strike could not be found liable but the union could be. It is difficult to say whether the affected party would or should be regarded as an extraneous party.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Putney for raising that example, which illustrates the difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, of defining the extent to which we reserve the balance of the present law which gives some protection to the innocent, outside party and the extent to which we modify it so as to legitimise fair strikes which are in pursuit of a fair primary objective. The example given by the hon. Member is one to add to the many others which we have considered and at which we shall look in the course of the reconsideration of this Clause.
      I invite the Committee to reject the Amendments, which go to the heart of the Clause, and to support the principle of the Clause on the basis that there is a clear distinction between the legitimate use of sympathetic supporting strike action and the use which goes further than can be justified in the complex state of modern society and involves innocent people who should not be involved in the dispute.
      Mrs. Castle: As the Solicitor-General said, we are all anxious to get on to the

      1957
      Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, because my hon. Friends have been in great difficulty in having to discuss the vital principles associated with the Clause in the context of Amendments of limited scope. We have had this difficulty throughout our discussions on the Bill. We have all found it quite impossible, if we wanted to do so, which we certainly do not, to do what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) suggested, namely, to sit down together and improve the details of the Bill before we have had a chance to bring home to the Solicitor-General the fact that the details of the Bill are a reflection of a basically wrong principle. This has been our problem. It is not our fault that our Amendment dealing with the principle was not called. We are therefore merely discussing one aspect of the Clause.
      The hon. Member for Peterborough, who pays us rather hurried visits from wherever it is he comes from and goes back again, having lectured us about how naughty we were to attack the Clause and how we should be sitting down with him to try to improve its detail, went on to quote examples of how bad the Clause was in its effect. I could not help feeling that circumstances alter cases. In discussing a Clause like this we can get involved in terrible abstractions and easily lose our way unless we are careful. It is interesting to note how, when any of us has had personal experience, the abstractions which sound so plausible in the mouth of the Solicitor-General turn out to be very different animals when aplied to concrete situations. That is the truth about some of the abstractions which we have heard from the Solicitor-General on these two Amendments.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that valid points of detailed criticism had been made from this side of the Committee and went on to say that he would look into some of the wording of the Clause, thus proving what was clear, I should have thought, to anybody listening to this debate, that if the Clause was intended to clarify the obscurities of the law on the secondary boycott—obscurities of which the Donovan Report complained—it had failed dismally. All the Solicitor-General has managed to do is to make the legal situation still more
      1958
      obscure and still more of a minefield for any trade unionist trying to thread his way through it.
      That is why the Donovan Report said that the only way to deal with this situation was to clarify the law. The Donovan Report said that the principle of borrowed strength was not only a traditional principle of industrial relations but a hallowed principle by any standards responding to natural human needs and the needs of those trying to organise for certain ends. Donovan wanted the law clarified to make the path forward more sure for trade unionists. What the Solicitor-General is doing by this Clause, as he has made clear in his remarks to us, is attempting to clarify the law by increasing the restrictions on trade unions, and that is why we have this phony distinction which is put before us of the difference between an "innocent" employer caught up in the wicked machinations of trade unions and the employer who may be said to have a real interest in the strike though not an immediate and direct party to it.
      So we come to this definition of the extraneous employer who, in the words of the Solicitor-General, is an innocent employer and ought therefore to be left alone. What the Clause as it now stands says is that an extraneous party is an employer who is

      "(a) … not a party to that dispute, and

      (b) has not … taken any action in material support"

      of it.
      First and foremost, of course, this adds nothing to the relief of obscurity, because it is certainly not easy to define the concept of who is and who is not a party to the dispute. We had some exchanges about that earlier in connection with the dockyards, and I hope my hon. Friends will be following this up in the wider discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      When we turn to the other limb of this part of the Clause, namely, what constitutes material support, we are entering a very wide field indeed, for subsection (2)(b) says that if an employer is to be considered extraneous and therefore innocent he must not have given material support
      "in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute".

      1959
      I am sure that we on this side are still totally unsatisfied that this does not mean that the ordinary supplier of goods who knows that his supplies are helping to break a strike does not then become an extraneous or an innocent party, because if that is so, if it is true that the ordinary supplier of goods who knows that his supplies are helping to break a strike becomes an innocent party so that there may be no action against him by his own workers, then this eliminates almost every supporting employer. Every supporting employer becomes extraneous. The extension of this meaning is very wide indeed, and we believe that it was intended to be wide. We believe that the purpose of these words is really to compound the apparent obscurity of the law instead of clearing it up, and to make darn sure that there will be very few guilty employers indeed under these secondary boycott provisions and, therefore, very few employers against whom it will be legal to take secondary boycott action.
      Then the Government go even further —in subsection (3). As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) pointed out, the Government go out of their way to ensure that whole groups of employers whom the ordinary layman would consider certainly to have an interest in and an influence upon a strike are rendered immune from sympathetic action.
      9.30 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General gave an interesting explanation of the reference to the associated employer in subsection (3)(a). It is remarkable that he should say that an associated employer should be immune. An associated employer may have financial, commercial and possibly negotiating and bargaining links with the employer who is involved in the original strike. It is contrary to all commonsense that an associated employer should be called an innocent party. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) nodding his head—
      Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge): I cannot extend my area of agreement with the right hon. Lady over the entire range of what she is saying, but on this point I am disturbed, and I should like it to register with the Solicitor-General.
      Mrs. Castle: We have had an explanation from the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was challenged on this by several of my hon. Friends. He said that he was merely saying that a person shall not be regarded as having taken the action mentioned by reason only that he is an associated employer, and he shall not be regarded as having given material support by reason only that he is an associated employer. We say that an associated employer must be deemed to be guilty in the Solicitor-General's sense, namely the opposite of innocent or extraneous, because he is associated. Why is this reference to the associated employer spelt out in subsection (3)? The Solicitor-General said that all he was saying was that he shall not automatically be regarded as guilty, not extraneous. To that we reply, why not automatically assume that there is a connection?
      I do not use "guilty" in an emotive sense. It is the Solicitor-General who uses these emotive terms about people being innocent or guilty employers. It is an absurd concept, because the opposite of innocence is guilt. There is no guilt in being an associated employer and having an interest in whether a strike succeeds or is broken. In commercial terms it is a straight piece of negotiation. The Solicitor-General loves wheeling out these moving phrases which make the general public feel that the Government are on the side of God.
      Mr. Hooson: I want to reinforce the right hon. Lady's point. I had not noticed until now that "associated employer" is defined for the purpose of the Bill in Clause 148(5) and has a very narrow meaning indeed.
      Mrs. Castle: I was coming to that point.
      Then the Government go out of their way in the interpretation Clause to define the associated employer in subsection (5). That definition has already been read by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). It says clearly that an associated company is one that has a linked control. It cannot possibly be extraneous. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has just pointed out to me that the definition of associated company in this Bill is the definition of associated employment which we put into the Equal Pay Act.

      1961
      Why did we do that? We did that to say that a woman shall be given equal treatment with men in the same employment and then we went on to define the same employment as being the same employment by men employed by her employer or any associated employer because there is a common interest and responsibility and a common link.
      The Government are standing the whole concept on its head. They are saying that the very fact that there is this kind of link, commercial, financial, negotiating and all the rest, does not automatically mean that the employer is guilty. If it does not mean that what does it mean? Does it mean that he is extraneous? The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has to put it positively, we cannot be left in the air with this negative. Trade unionists and workers can be penalised by law once the Bill is passed and they have a right to have it put the positive way round, not the double negative way. If it does not automatically follow that because an employer is associated he is guilty, and therefore the action against him is legal, when will the action against him be illegal? Tell us that. Tell the trade union movement. It is intolerable to add to the obscurity of the present law. This is a classic example of the double talk and double meanings which we are getting from the Government together with all of the double dangers.
      Secondly, says the Solicitor-General, the mere membership of an employer's organisation does not destroy the innocent status of the secondary employer. However, that organisation may have decided to use its collective strength to resist strikes. Thirdly, subsection (3) spells it out, an employers' organisation or any group of employers may actually set up a strike indemnity fund, as the Engineering Employers Federation has done, to compensate any one of its members against loss which they may incur in resisting strikes generally.
      That is to become legal under the Bill. The fact that an employer is contributing to a common indemnity fund to resist strikes does not deprive him of his innocence under the Clause. It is an intoler-
      able example of the incompatibility between what the Government do and say. No wonder they have been accused of hypocrisy by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I think that his language was remarkably restrained in view of the enormity of this Measure. I say to the Solicitor-General, "Come on, let's be adult, let's play it straight with one another". Will he not admit that Clause 87(3)(c) was put into the Bill at the specific request of the Engineering Employers Federation? The Federation has been running this indemnity fund; it can hardly come before any common sense audience and claim to be entirely innocent in the situation when it has its indemnity fund as part and parcel of its apparatus for fighting strikes. But if a trade union tries to use borrowed strength against the collective strength of the Federation, the Solicitor-General will have it up and see that it suffers the penalties of this law.
      The Committee may be interested to know that the final crux of the situation is that contributions to strike indemnity funds are probably allowable for tax purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster asked a pertinent Question about this on 12th February. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
      "… if a company's contributions to a strike indemnity fund of an employers' association are allowable for tax purposes."
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied:
      "This would depend on the constitution of the association and the rules governing the indemnity fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 287.]
      There is an admission that these indemnity funds can even be financed by the taxes of the strikers whom they are out to penalise. How far can we go in the enormities of this Clause?
      Having listened to the Solicitor-General's pathetic travesty of an argument, I ask the Committee seriously to back this Amendment.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      Committee divided: Ayes 241, Noes 276.

      Division No. 166.]

      AYES

      [9.42 p.m.]

      Abse, Leo

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Ashton, Joe

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Atkinson, Norman

      Allen, Scholefield

      Ashley, Jack

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Barnes, Michael

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Barnett, Joel

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Beaney, Alan

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oram, Bert

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hattersley, Roy

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Orme, Stanley

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hilton, W. S.

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Palmer, Arthur

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Horam, John

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Booth, Albert

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Buchan, Norman

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

      Prescott, John

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Janner, Greville

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cant, R. B.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Probert, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      John, Brynmor

      Rankin, John

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Joncs, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

      Cohen, Stanley

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

      Roper, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Judd, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kelley, Richard

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

      Cronin, John

      Kinnock, Neil

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

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Lambie, David

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

      Lamond, James

      Sillars, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Latham, Arthur

      Silverman, Julius

      Davidson, Arthur

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Small, William

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Leonard, Dick

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Dempsey, James

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Doig, Peter

      Loughlin, Charles

      Strang, Gavin

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McBride, Neil

      Taverne, Dick

      Driberg, Tom

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McElhone, Frank

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Dunn, James A.

      McGuire, Michael

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

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tinn, James

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackie, John

      Tomney, Frank

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Torney, Tom

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tuck, Raphael

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ellis, Tom

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Varley, Eric C.

      English, Michael

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Wainwright. Edwin

      Evans, Fred

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

      Fernyhough, E.

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

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wallace, George

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Marquand, David

      Watkins, David

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Weltzman, David

      Foley, Maurice

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ford, Ben

      Meacher, Michael

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Forrester, John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mendelson, John

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mikardo, Ian

      Whitlock, William

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Milian, Bruce

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Ginsburg, David

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Moyle, Ronald

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Mr. John Golding.

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Ogden, Eric

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Alison, Mickael (Barkston Ash)

      Astor, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      1964

      1965

      Balniel, Lord

      Grieve, Percy

      More, Jasper

      Batsford, Brian

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Turton

      Grylis, Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Bell, Ronald

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Gurden, Harold

      Mudd, David

      Benyon, W.

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Murton, Oscar

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Biffen, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neave, Airey

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Blaker, Peter

      Hannan, John (Exeter)

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Normanton, Tom

      Body, Richard

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Nott, John

      Boscawen, Robert

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Cranley

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John

      Havers, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Braine, Bernard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Bray, Ronald

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Brewis, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hiley, Joseph

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

      Peel, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Percival, Ian

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Holland, Philip

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Bryan, Paul

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Pink, R. Bonner

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Buck, Antony

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

      Burden, F. A.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hunt, John

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Carlisle, Mark

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Raison, Timothy

      Cary, Sir Robert

      James, David

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Channon, Paul

      Jessel, Toby

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Redmond, Robert

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Clegg, Walter

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Coombs, Derek

      Kilfedder, James

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cordle, John

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rost, Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Critchley, Julian

      Kirk, Peter

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Crouch, David

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Scott, Nicholas

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knox, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Curran, Charles

      Lambton, Antony

      Sharples, Richard

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lane, David

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

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Simeone, Charles

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dean, Paul

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

      Dixon, Piers

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

      Soref, Harold

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

      Speed, Keith

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Longden, Gilbert

      Spence John

      Drayson, C. B.

      Loveridge, John

      Sproat, Ian

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stainton, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      McLaren, Martin

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stokes, John

      Emery, Peter

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Eyre, Reginald

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Farr, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Fidler, Michael

      Maddan, Martin

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

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maginnie, John E.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Foster, Sir John

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fowler, Norman

      Marten, Neil

      Temple, John M.

      Fox, Marcus

      Mather, Carol

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Fry, Peter

      Maude, Angus

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

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gardner, Edward

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trew, Peter

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Goodhart, Philip

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

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Gorst, John

      Moate, Roger

      Waddington, David

      Gower, Raymond

      Molyneaux, James

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Green, Alan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      1966

      1967

      Wall, Patrick

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. R.

      Walters, Dennis

      Wilkinson, John

      Younger, Hn, George

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Warren, Kenneth

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. As you are aware, Sir Alfred, during the course of a debate fresh points sometimes arise as a result of which it is decided that it would help generally if a vote were taken on a subsidiary Amendment. I submit for your consideration that such a fresh point has arisen in relation to Amendment No. 462, in the name of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). In the course of our discussion it was clearly shown that that Amendment raised issues not covered by the Amendment that was moved. It deals with a separate issue, which ought to be decided separately by the Committee. You have been here throughout the discussion, Sir Alfred, and you will doubtless recognise that a fresh point was raised. In those circumstances I beg to ask leave formally to move Amendment No. 462 for a Division.
      The Temporary Chairman: Let me say at once that I cannot grant permission for Amendment No. 462 to be moved. Very careful consideration of all the Amendments has been given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He has made a selection, and I do not have the power to vary it.
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friends and I wish to debate this Clause in a little more detail than we have been able to do up to now. A great deal of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) covers many of the arguments that we would deploy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend; the contribution that she has made has emphasised precisely how difficult it is for the layman to get to grips with the Bill and to understand it. We shall want some very clear answers from the Solicitor-General in relation to the points made by my right hon. Friend.
      I shall have to be a little careful about what I say during the debate, as I seem to have run into a little local difficulty on a couple of occasions today.
      1968
      I will do my best to keep strictly in order.
      We regard not only the Clause but the whole of Part V as one of the most pernicious parts of the Bill as far as it operates against the trade union movement. The Clause is probably the most pernicious Clause of a Bill which is full of pernicious Clauses. We shall make it clear during the next two or three hours that this part of the Bill and especially this Clause ought to be withdrawn. I am very interested to note that even the representative of the Liberal Party also appealed to the Solicitor-General to withdraw this part of the Bill.
      In the course of an earlier brief speech, the Solicitor-General made it absolutely clear that whereas Clauses 85 and 86 could well apply to unregistered trade unions and to unofficial strikers—although there was argument about interpretation—nevertheless this Clause, to use his words, is directed in a different way and it affects strikes whether they are official or unofficial, whether the strike began as a so-called fair strike or as an unfair industrial practice. This is the basic point on the Clause.
      The Roberts Arundel dispute was mentioned both yesterday and today. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that that dispute would be covered by the fact that within the Bill the union could apply for recognition and the American employer would be forced to grant it. It may well be that an employer could be forced to grant recognition under the Bill. But, having been forced to accept recognition of the trade union, an employer could then carry out a series of actions which could lead to the workers taking what hon. Members on the other side of the Committee would regard as a fair action and calling an official dispute at that firm. We should remember the type of management with which we would be dealing. It is one that has made it perfectly clear that it really objects to the principle of trade unions. But it has been forced into a position of having to accept a trade union. Nevertheless, it will then conduct

      1969
      the dispute in every possible way to ensure the defeat of the trade union.
      10.0 p.m.
      Under the Bill the trade union would face an immediate problem. A firm which was supplying goods, perhaps on a long-term contract, could well argue that it had no particular association with the dispute but was merely supplying on the basis of a long-term contract entered into years before when the firm was a British firm.
      In those circumstances, under this Part of the Bill, the trade union could not ask the workers in the factories supplying the goods to take action against the supplier.
      Mr. David Mitchell indicated assent.
      Mr. Awdry indicated assent.
      Mr. Heffer: Hon. Gentlemen are agreeing, yet hon. Members opposite deny the argument adduced by many of my hon. Friends to the effect that the Clause tilts the balance entirely in the employer's favour. If there can be no right to appeal to trade unionists in supplying factories, the employer starts off with a 100 per cent. advantage over the union. This is not parity.
      Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that fundamentally the Roberts Arundel strike was not about trades union recognition. It was about bad management. It lasted two years and was resolved only by the union eventually taking three actions—trying to prevent the supply of goods, blacking all sub-contract work in the area, where ever it was being done, and imposing a levy on members throughout the district concerned? All three actions would be illegal under the Clause.
      Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A study of this dispute shows that for the trade union to be able to defeat this anti-trade union firm it was necessary for pickets to follow certain lorries at night to discover where the goods were coming from and then to appeal to the workers in those factories not to allow the goods to be sent to Roberts Arundel. The trade union had to go further and appeal to trade unionists in Europe. Solidarity on this national
      1970
      and international scale was necessary to defeat this anti-trade union firm.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the need for solidarity and of the way in which solidarity brought about an end to the Roberts Arundel dispute. In that case, why was not the union able to obtain solidarity in the works? If it had succeeded in achieving that, it would not have needed to take any further action, because no firm can operate without labour?
      Mr. Heffer: To use an old cliché, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it leads me on to my next point.
      The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said that he could not understand why we felt so strongly on this matter. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely trying to understand our point of view, as I hope that we are trying to understand his. I would not say that of all hon. Members opposite, but I believe that the hon. Member for Chippenham is genuinely trying to understand our point of view.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), the firm continued with a very small group of workers, all of whom were non-trade unionists. Many of them were paid over the union rates. This rate was paid to get them there for the time being; and then, when the union was destroyed, they would not be paid the official union rates.
      The Government say that workers should have a legally protected right not to join a trade union. Let us suppose that a group of these workers, not trade unionists, remained at work and other workers took action because they were not trade unionists. First, that would be an unfair industrial practice, and, second, they would be caught under this Clause at a later stage. So there are two bites at the cherry. Obviously, we cannot accept that.
      Now, the question of solidarity. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke about employers' contributions to an indemnity fund. Indemnity funds are known particularly in the engineering industry, but they are not

      1971
      confined to engineering. Many employers' associations have them. An indemnity fund is for the purpose of assisting other members who may be involved in a trade dispute or for other reasons regarded as entitled to support.
      Apparently, it is perfectly all right for employers to assist one another and to show solidarity—they are not caught under the Bill—but it is no good the workers thinking that they may show solidarity and support one another through sympathetic action. We are told that the balance is not tipped in favour of the employers and the system is perfectly fair. Yet employers may assist one another and, what is more, it is all right if they are members of the same association.
      Clause 148(5) means that there could be a number of associated companies with direct financial interests in one another, but under separate forms of management, which could assist one another; yet if the workers decide to take sympathetic action in relation to those managements, they would be in trouble under the Bill. Do hon. Members honestly think that this is fair and not intended to weaken the trade union movement? Of course it is not. I have never seen anything more blatant. We could not possibly accept it.
      So often in these debates, I have had to promise my hon. Friends that I would make a short speech so that as many others could take part, and I have done the same tonight, but I wish, before I close, to draw attention to one or two other aspects of the Clause. I take, first, the part which directly relates to the dispute which took place between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Torquay hotel.
      Lord Denning gave this judgment on that occasion:
      "The time has come when the principle"
      —of liability in common law—
      "extends to a case where the third person ate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach."
      So we have a new concept. It does not even have to cause a breach to be interference with the execution of a contract. He added that such interference
      "extends to a case where the third person prevents or hinders a party from performing his contract."
      1972
      In the Clause we find the words:
      …
      to interfere with the performance by another person of a contract (not being a contract of employment) to which that other person is a party,"
      It is clear that hon. Members opposite have lifted the judgment of Lord Denning and put it into the Clause. I understand from my legal friends that that is a novel situation in the law. If it is not, I am certain that lawyers on the other side of the Committee will be only too keen to put me right.
      This part of the Bill, like most of the Bill, is based upon the Taft-Hartley Act. There is no question about that. I have a copy of that Act. Section 8(b)(4), dealing with this matter, is headed,
      "Unfair labour practices".
      That Section is taken out almost word for word, though put in a different way—[Interruption.] The words can be the same, but they can be rearranged. If hon. Members opposite do not know that, they do not know anything. The Clause comes straight out of the Taft-Hartley Act.
      What exactly does that mean? Again I quote Professor Wedderburn, who, the Solicitor-General says, is a dedicated leftist, or something like that. I can only assume that the Solicitor-General is a dedicated rightist. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like us referring to what Professor Wedderburn says. In the speech of 12th January Professor Wedderburn said:
      "Clause 87 would make unlawful sympathetic and other secondary strike and solidarity action which has been lawful in Britain for decades. Two leading professors at Yale Law School put it well when they said about the similar Taft-Hartley law in the USA, that curtailing secondary action makes unions 'enter the economic struggle with one hand tied'."
      That is precisely what happened.
      I should now like to quote another passage from Mr. Meany's letter to Mr. Victor Feather. He wrote:
      "Our legislation does not, however, by any means make all forms of secondary industrial action unlawful.' Indeed, questions of what sorts of secondary actions are permissible and what are illegal are the most complex and difficult to answer in our whole body of labor law."
      That is going to be the position. We shall get into the most difficult and complicated situations in discussing this whole question.

      1973
      10.15 p.m.
      I do not care whether a strike begins as an official strike or as an unofficial strike or whether it starts as an unofficial strike and is made official. We do not always agree with unofficial strikes. Many of us have made statements to unofficial strikers urging them perhaps to take a different line of action. But we have always regarded the right to strike—any form of strike—as one of the most important principles of freedom. It is a principle which The Spectator pointed out a few weeks ago as being undermined by the Bill. It warned us, "Be careful as to what is happening in this country". That principle is not a dangerous philosophy. The dangerous philosophy is that of the Government, who are slowly but surely eroding fundamental rights in this country which have been built up by the trade union movement and by democrats throughout the centuries.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——
      Mr. Heffer: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am coming to my conclusion. I am making the point that as far as we are concerned workers have the right to take industrial action to fight for better conditions.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——
      Hon. Members: Sit down.
      Mr. Heffer: Very well. I will give way.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman. He is talking from the Opposition Front Bench. He, as an official trade union leader, has just upgraded the value of an unofficial strike.
      Mr. Heffer: I have not upgraded an unofficial strike. Nor have I downgraded an official strike. I have said that the right to strike, officially or unofficially, is one of the basic freedoms which the working people or any other people have in this country, and that this part of the Bill is taking away the right of workers to take that action without incurring the wrath of the law.
      This can be the first step on a very difficult road which the Government are taking, and it is a very serious step. We have seen this sort of thing before in other parts of the world. The process begins like this. A right is eroded very slowly. Then the process builds up. When
      1974
      there is a continuation of strikes—and this provision will not prevent them from taking place—voices on the benches opposite will be raised, as they are now being raised in the United States, to say, "We have to go further." The question of secondary boycotts is interesting in this context. In 1947, when the Taft-Hartley Act came in, there were very few illegal secondary boycotts. Then the Landrum-Griffin Amendment was introduced and the law was tightened up. Voices are being raised now saying that it should be tightened up even further.
      Before we know where we are, we in this country will find that the trade union movemetn is completely tied up-—and all this despite the fact that hon. Members opposite, with their hands on their hearts, are constantly telling us that they are fair in their attitude towards the trade unions.
      [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
      Mr. Ian Percival (Southport): I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Liver-polo, Walton (Mr. Heifer) assert and acknowledge that there are many of us on both sides of the Committee trying genuinely to understand each other's point of view. I hope that he will he good enough to include me amongst them. I understand the reasons for some of the fears arising from the Clause. I can understand the uneasiness about the words "associated employer". But I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, and to other hon. Members opposite who spoke on the Amendment, that perhaps they are overstating the case on this Clause quite substantially.
      Mr. Heffer indicated dissent.
      Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman wags his head. If, when I sit down, he is still wagging his head, I shall have failed to make any impression on him. But that should not deter one from trying. I do not challenge his sincerity, but in his peroration the hon. Member for Walton got a little carried away. He said the Clause is intended to tilt the balance wholly in favour of an employer. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we have sat and listened to some of their arguments, some of which might have made us laugh if we had not been considering the matter seriously.
      Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian): He was not here.
      Mr. Percival: I shall not rise to that, having been here trying all evening to make the point which I have been rising time and again to make.
      The hon. Gentleman might consider the other point of view, that the intention and effect of the Clause is not to tilt the balance in anybody's favour, and most especially not to favour the employer.
      What it does is to protect the person who has no part in the dispute from the damage which may be done to him and which may be extremely serious to him and to persons employed by him when he has no connection with it, when there is no fault on his part and when he has no interest. That is another way of looking at it. Is it necessarily wrong to seek to protect that person?
      Of course we recognise that the right to strike is something which has been fought for and established, and we recognise it as a perfectly legitimate bargaining weapon and the right to strike is built into the Bill. But should there be a right to take action to damage an innocent party? That is what the Clause is all about. What we are talking about is whether it shall be an unfair industrial practice to take action against a person, who is not a party to the dispute and who has done nothing material in that dispute, for the purpose of injuring him and making someone else do what one wants, by inducing him to break a contract to which he is a party, perhaps with serious consequences for him, or to prevent him, a person not a party to the dispute and who has done nothing in connection with it, from performing a contract into which he has entered and by which he is bound and upon which his livelihood and that of his employees may well depend.
      Mr. Orme: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say therefore that paragraph (b)—
      "to interfere with the performance by another person …".
      is an accurate form of words to interpret this intention? Does he agree with that?
      Mr. Percival: I am coming to that. What I have done is to say that this is what we are talking about, whether it should be an unfettered right for people to act in that way and so to cause harm
      1976
      to people who are not a party to and have not taken an active part in the matter.
      Having said that, I entirely accept that there is considerable room for discussion as to the precise terms of what is and is not allowed, and I believe that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has a substantial point in the wording of subsection (1)(b). I am sure that the Committee was much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for intervening much earlier on to say that he was not happy with it.
      Mr. Ormewhat the Committee stage is for.
      Mr. Percival: I thought that that was what Parliament was all about—to discuss what was in a Bill. The House of Commons is often more generous than may sometimes appear and I hope that hon. Members will be quick to respond when a Minister in charge acknowledges that the wording is not satisfactory and that changes must be made.
      I would suggest one other possibility. The Solicitor-General made it clear that the revised wording is intended to cover preventing somebody from performing his contract. He made it clear that it would not cover preventing somebody from entering into a contract. There is one other matter which arose in the Torquay Hotel case. A contract can often be determined by a week's or a fortnight's notice. I hope that it will be made clear in the revised wording that action to force somebody to terminate a contract which they would not otherwise have terminated will be among actions which constitute an unfair industrial practice. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who is concerned that this should not apply to any contract which is broken or interfered with quite incidentally as a result of a strike. However, we have had such a clear assurance that we need not spend more time on that matter.
      I understand the misgivings about the use and definition of the phrase "associated employer". It is tolerably clear that because of the use of the word "only" this is not intended to have such wide repercussions as some hon. Members thought. I hope that the Solicitor-General in his revised wording will make

      1977
      a little clearer that what is meant is that the mere fact that companies are associated shall not prevent somebody being an extraneous party; that there must be some greater connection than a mere association as defined. If there is a way of making it even clearer that that is what is meant, I should welcome it. We do not want to leave room for misgivings. May I as a lawyer say that the one thing we do not want to do is to leave room for argument and litigation—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The lawyers will make thousands out of it.
      Mr. Percival: I thought that might raise a smile, but there are some of us who have a catalogue of the number of occasions when we have told this House that if it passes something in a particular form it will create work for the lawyers.
      1978
      The House has usually passed it nevertheless and our point has soon been proved. We are as anxious as anybody to make sure that when legislation leaves this place it is intelligible. Let us accept that there is considerable room for improvement on the detail of the Clause.
      What we are concerned with in this debate is whether or not it is right that any person, whether a trade union, unregistered organisation, or anybody else should be free to cause damage to an entirely innocent party in the furtherance of their own interest. I believe it is not right that that position should continue; that it is no infringement of anybody's liberty to say that should not be done. It is the barest protection which should be given to the other members of society who are in no way responsible for or concerned in the dispute.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for catching your eye at last, Miss Harvie Anderson. I do not mean that in any rude way. It was just an expression of relief, having sat here for nearly seven hours without being called.
      The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said that we on this side of the Committee were overstating our case and that perhaps some of the fears which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) outlined would not be realised or were far too great and that it was wrong to say that we were tilting the balance in the employers' favour. But I think that that is correct. I. do not think that the balance was ever tilted in our favour. I do not think that there was ever an equilibrium. The balance has not been "tilted" in the employers' favour; it has been "tilted further" in the employers' favour—much further.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the right to strike was built into the Bill. It is. It is walled up. The right to strike has been so limited and curtailed that we shall need the services of the hon. and learned Gentleman every time we have a dispute on the shop floor to be able to see our way through the maze of legislation and conditions which have been discussed before we can decide whether a person is entitled to withdraw his labour.
      My trade union has a particular interest in this set of Clauses. The general workers' unions were built up purely and simply on the basis that they would be able to establish their right to strike and to take sympathetic action in order to protect one another. This was learned in Liverpool and other places from Connolly and Larkin, and it gave us our strength so that we could take on employers one by one and use our collective strength to protect ourselves. This right has been taken away by the Bill.
      May I say how glad I am to see one of the Under-Secretaries of State for the Environment on the Front Bench. I hope that he will be able to give us some elucidation on the points raised earlier with the same success as he had last time. The Solicitor-General was some-
      1980
      what shy when we were discussing Clause 86. He said that we should discuss certain matters on Clause 87. When we discussed Clause 87, some of the points raised were not answered by the Solicitor-General when he spoke to the Amendments. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could answer some of the points which are of considerable concern to us.
      We started with a situation in which we had a primary employer in a dispute with a trade union, and we put forward a number of cases concerning lines 36 and 37 of Clause 86 and the interpretation being placed on line 4 of Clause 87. We said that if pressure were put on an employer directly to intervene—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend wish to make a point?
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: A remark was made by an hon. Member opposite and I wrongly replied—for which I apologise to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member opposite said that I should sit on the Opposition Front Bench to make up the sparse numbers. I said that it was not the Opposition Front Bench but the Government Front Bench which needed reinforcement, and it would be nice to see the Attorney-General, who has never put his nose in the Chamber during the discussions on this Bill.
      Mr. McNamara: I would say that my hon. Friend would be an excellent person to be there, considering how it was that the Leader of the House was yesterday persuaded to reserve for the Order Paper those iniquitous proposals to be put on the Statute Book.
      To come back to what is far more serious, for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State I will repeat the situation. An employer has a strike on his hands. We come to the second employer. The second employer deliberately decides to go to the help of the first employer, who, for the purpose of this Clause, is not an extraneous party. We now come to the second situation. The second employer already has a contract existing with the first employer. A union brings pressure to bear on him not to fulfil his contract, because if he fulfils his contract the primary employer will not be damaged. Is that employer in that case, who is only normally fulfilling the contract, extraneous for this purpose, or not?

      1981
      The third situation which arises is where the employer has a contract with another employer who is still in dispute, and then the other employer takes on a further obligation under the existing contract to make good losses which the employer in dispute is having as a result of the dispute which is going on. If a union brings pressure to bear on that employer who has the existing contract and has taken on a further burden, and if that employer suffers damage on his existing contract by virtue of taking on the extra burden, is that an extraneous matter under the Clause?
      Fourth, what happens if in normal commercial negotiations there is a dispute and another employer negotiates a fresh contract with the employer in dispute and starts to perform it? Is he thereby endamaged as an extraneous person if a union brings pressure to bear upon the employer in order to prevent the employer in dispute from being successful in his dispute?
      There are four fairly easy matters, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's reply to them.
      The next point I want to make—and it is important—is this. We had a statement by the Solicitor-General, when he was talking about action taken under this Clause in relation to action under Clause 86——
      Mr. Orme: Where is the Minister?
      Mr. McNamara: With due respect to my hon. Friend, we have the attendance of the Under-Secretary, and we know how good he is in replying to these matters. I have no objection if the Minister is not here. He has not answered all our points before, and he has been in attendance for much of the debate and, therefore, I think it is quite fair that he should get some refreshment. It is not our intention to starve out the Government, though there are rumours that the Department of Health and Social Security is doing that with the families of strikers.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the hon. Member allow me to disabuse hon. Members about the situation? The hon. Member surely knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is involved with negotiations over the Post Office dispute. I will say no more than that. I think the Committee would at least ex-
      1982
      cuse him on that ground. The Solicitor-General, who will be replying to the debate, is having a very brief break, having sat here since 3.30 this afternoon.
      Mr. McNamara: I am glad to know that the Secretary of State is not deliberately an extraneous party to the debate. I accept that he is engaged in serious negotiations, and I am glad his Department is working on conciliation, which it has failed to do for so long. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General has been here all day, and that he has attempted to answer our questions, but he has failed to do so.
      The Solicitor-General said that if sympathetic action was taken in support of a strike by a registered trade union which was originally unofficial, that secondary action was unfair industrial practice. However, if the trade union executive made that strike official, the unfair industrial practice which constituted the secondary boycott became official, and the actions of those people were one minute regarded as unofficial and the next minute as official. But in a constitutional strike which later becomes unofficial, the secondary boycott is at first official and legitimate and then becomes unofficial. So the answer is a banana. What is the logic of this? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) said that we had been talking midsummer madness about the Bill, but the Solicitor-General made confusion worse confounded by his attitude.
      Under the Bill, action which is not official industrial action is unfair, and if unfair action is taken by a registered trade union, that union may be liable to pay damages of up to £100,000. But when a trade union which is not registered or a group of people take part in an action which may at one time be legal and become illegal, or at one time be illegal and become legal, where will the quantum of damages and the limitation be placed? We are making an ass of the law.
      To take this one stage further, two unions may be involved in a dispute. For the sake of argument I assume that they are both registered and that the dispute is legal. One of those unions may recognise the dispute and the other may not. The workers may belong to two separate

      1983
      unions. If one group of workers belongs to the A.E.F., for example, and the A.E.F. recognises the strike, they are justified as a secondary industrial boycott. But say they are members of the Transport and General, which does not recognise the strike. They can say: "We support the A.E.F. which is an official strike but not the unofficial T.G.W.U. strike because if we do we shall be subject to the penalties of the Bill." It is a banana. Whichever way you go you slip on it.
      Mr. Kinnock: It is a lemon.
      Mr. McNamara: The Solicitor-General is making the law asinine and is in danger of bringing the whole of the law into disrepute. Law can so easily be destroyed by actions which are shown to be so class-motivated and against the working class. Weighting the scales in this way is not a new idea. I would like to read a quotation from the debate on the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill on 30th May, 1911:
      "It is not good for trade unions that they should be brought into contact with the courts, and it is not good for the courts. The courts hold justly a high and, I think, unequalled prominence in respect of the world in criminal cases, and in civil cases between man and man, no doubt, they deserve and command the respect and admiration of all classes in the community, but where class issues are involved, and where party issues are involved, it is impossible not to pretend that the courts command the same degree of general confidence. On the contrary, they do not, and a very large number of our population have been led to the opinion that they are, unconsciously no doubt, biassed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1911; Vol. 26, c. 1022.]
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Who said that?
      Mr. McNamara: Winston Spencer Churchill.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: I thought it would be a good Tory.
      Mr. McNamara: The former Prime Minister had to some extent overcome the effect of his original sin.
      Not only are these Clauses basically unfair, not only do they hit at the strong, but they hit those in small institutions who cannot look towards a greater institution to protect them. More than this they show the bias contained in the Bill.
      1984
      Employers can pay into a strike fund to indemnify themselves against a strike but if a trade union wants to help a strike fund it will be punished. What happens if trade unions say that they will have a general strike fund to be used at their discretion in industrial disputes? Will this be caught by the Bill.
      I see the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) shaking his head. Does he wish to say something?
      Mr. Tom King: I am shaking my head because I do not believe that this is a problem in the Bill.
      Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 86 he will see that the provisions for a strike will have to be drawn very carefully. If there is a collection, like the whip-round we had for the Post Office workers or in support of a strike, then the people doing that are likely to be caught by the Bill. I ask the Minister to look at these problems and give me the answers. We want to know the Government's intentions.
      Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes): The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) described this problem as "a banana". But it appeared to me that the greater part of his speech was concerned with Clause 86. In Clause 87 the secondary boycott applies to both fair and unfair actions, whereas there is a distinction in Clause 86.
      Mr. McNamara: Clauses 86 and 87 are interlinked. Though hon. Members on this side tried to raise these points when we were discussing Clause 86, the Solicitor-General said that we would be dealing with them when we came to Clause 87. In view of that, though some of us wanted to speak on Clause 86, we held our fire so that we could raise these matters on Clause 87. That is the point.
      Mr. Mawby: I make no complaint about it, because the hon. Gentleman made some fair points. I wish merely to make it clear that it is Clause 86, and not 87, which differentiates between a fair and an unfair dispute.
      We have been discussing whether the words in the Clause will be construed in the way in which this Committee would wish. In other words, this is a matter, first, of the intention, and then of the wording necessary to ensure that our intention is put into effect. My hon. and

      1985
      learned Friend has assured us that he will look closely at several parts of the Clause to which his attention has been drawn. In view of that, I am inclined to leave the lawyers to argue about the wording, and I am no lawyer.
      As for the intention, it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) cite the case of the Imperial Hotel, Torquay, versus the Transport and General Workers' Union. He described it as a legal ruling. However, in my part of the world it was a little more than a decision of the court, because it affected the future livelihoods of many people.
      As my hon. and learned Friend said, Clause 118 will prevent the courts entertaining another case of this sort, and, if they do, they will be unable to reach the same conclusion. For that reason, it is important to know what the case involved.
      It was about an inter-union dispute. The Municipal and General Workers' Union had organised catering workers in Torquay for many years. The Transport and General Workers' Union came along——
      Mr. McNamara: And had the most members.
      Mr. Mawby: We have to remember what we have been told by hon. Members opposite so often. They maintain that the voluntary solution of these problems can be safely left to the T.U.C. What happened in this case was that not only was the T. and G.W.U. in dispute with a number of hotels, but it operated a secondary boycott against the Imperial Hotel and also against a number of smaller hotels which had nothing to do with the dispute. No employer could find a solution in any event, because it was an inter-union dispute and had to be resolved by the unions concerned.
      Mr. Heffer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I was citing a legal judgment and not discussing the rights and wrongs of the dispute. Will he also agree that some employers will make agreements with those whom they regard as tame unions, and then, when another union secures a majority of members, they argue that their agreement is with the tame union, even though it has the smaller membership?
      Mr. Mawby: I do not think that any members of the M.G.W.U. present tonight would be inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman's reference to its being a tame union. [Interruption.] Is it a tame union? This was the inference. If not. I apologise.
      I have known of staff associations, for instance, which have been and would be the type of organisation to which one would refer as "tame" and to which employers can say, "There is no need for us to recognise you as another bona fide union because we have one." I accept that point.
      To return to my point, the hon. Gentleman was either suggesting or inferring that the M.G.W.U. was a tame union. [Interruption.] If not, we can forget about that particular argument.
      There were two bona fide T.U.C. affiliated unions in dispute with each other. The M.G.W.U. had had recognition agreements with the hoteliers of Torquay over many years. Then the Transport and General Workers' Union walked in and declared that it would organise Torquay. The Transport and General Workers' Union has a perfect right——
      Mr. McNamara rose——
      Mr. Mawby: —to be in dispute with a particular employer, and it has its own ways and means of pursuing that matter. But many hoteliers in Torquay not involved in that dispute in any way had their businesses damaged because the Transport and General Workers' Union operated a secondary boycott by preventing fuel oil and other supplies going to other hotels. In common decency——
      Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose——
      Mr. Mawby: —surely no one would suggest that people who have no quarrel or connection with a dispute ought to have their businesses endangered by a secondary boycott.
      Mr. Rose: Is it not right that the decision in that case was that there was no trade dispute and, therefore, the Transport and General Workers' Union did not succeed? If so, what is the need to change the law?
      Mr. Mawby: We have been reminded that under Clause 118 the power of the

      1987
      civil court to deal with these matters is to be restricted, because there will be other ways to deal with them. Had the Imperial Hotel not had the funds to entertain a court case—most of the other hotels would probably not have taken the risk—I question whether it would have got to court at all. Yet many hoteliers who were not involved in the primary dispute were put in extreme danger.
      The Clause will at least cover that point. A small employer will not have to ask the civil court to make a decision and, because of different legal opinions and decisions in various cases, not know until the case has been decided how much expense he has incurred in trying to pursue his protection, as was proved in the Imperial Hotel case. There could be another case which could go the other way, and Clause 118 takes away the right to take it up in a civil court. This is a much more sensible way of doing it.
      11.0 p.m.
      The principle of the Clause has been explained time and time again. Where some other employer is closely connected, either as a party to the dispute or as having taken action in material support of the primary party, the Clause will not apply. There would be complete justification for a secondary boycott being operated in that other company because it was materially connected with the original dispute.
      On the other hand, where one has organisations, companies, and small businesses which have no connection whatever with the dispute and which can do nothing about it because it is none of their business, unless the Clause is there they could be damaged and even put out of business by a secondary boycott, although they could do nothing about the dispute. Some rewording will be needed, but the principle of the Clause is correct in protecting those not materially connected with a dispute from a secondary boycott.
      My hon. and learned Friend has given an undertaking that we can look at this again on Report, but the principle is good and it will prevent some unfair damage in certain circumstances.
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) set off on a long road in explanation of the Torquay case, but gave his case away because when it went to law the Transport and General
      1988
      Workers' Union lost the case. Why, then, should he want to change the law by the Bill if such cases are already trapped by existing law?
      Mr. Stainton: What about the expense?
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Member might tell us what expense the new Industrial Courts will cost the country with the salaries of High Court judges and the paraphernalia which will surround them.
      The question of secondary boycott and blacking of work is germane to industrial solidarity in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) earlier said that this was a vital industrial activity which was not practised to extreme in this country, but there are occasions when it is necessary.
      The Roberts Arundel case was given as an instance. It was a classic case. That was an engineering firm producing engineering equipment for the cotton industry. It employed skilled engineers. The interesting thing was that the firm would not become a member of the Engineering Employers' Federation. The voluntary code of conduct that exists between the trade unions and the Federation would have prevented the very things that happened at Roberts Arundel. It would have preserved the basic right of trade union recognition and basic negotiating rights. These are agreed by established firms as being fundamental rights that operate throughout the engineering industry.
      Secondary boycotts arise in most cases with firms that are non-federated. They are normally small firms; very often the employers are of the militant type, who take an individualistic view of trade unions. They adopt a 19th century attitude. In consequence, disputes often arise.
      In the South-West the workers in an engineering firm recently went on strike for about nine months—not on the question of trade union recognition but as a result of a wages case. My union paid the strike pay for nine months, and in the end had to impose a levy on its members. It circulated all the branches of my organisation asking that all the work coming from that firm should not be handled—in other words, that it should be blacked. There was no calling out of

      1989
      members of the union in the other firms. That is why the Solicitor-General has worded the Bill in such a way as to catch action other than strike action. The members of the union were not called out and were not instructed not to handle the sub-contract work; they took their own decision.
      Apparently it is all right for an employer to send out his work for subcontract in case of a dispute; he is covered by the law. But if a trade union tries to prevent that sub-contract work being done it is acting outside the terms of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) mentioned the protection that exists for employers' indemnity funds in Clause 87(3). It is an affront to the trade union movement that in the very Clause that takes away some of the basic rights of trade unions and penalises them for taking secondary action the employers are having their position strengthened. It is incredible.
      There is no defence for that sort of thing. Nobody objects to an employer having an indemnity fund, like a trade union's strike fund, but if the hon. Member for Peterborough and the Solicitor-General think that the provisions of the Clause represent an evening out of the imbalance between unions and employers their idea of natural justice is different from that of my hon. Friends and me.
      I turn to the question of preventing secondary boycotts, and the effect that that has had in the United States. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was found to be not strong enough, so the Landrum-Griffin Amendment was brought in. In November, 1969, I was in the United States—in California—when the General Electric Company strike was on at Los Angeles and San Francisco. I visited some of the firms involved and talked to the men on the picket lines. I found that an official dispute was taking place throughout the whole of the General Electric Company's factories in the United States, involving about 148,000 employees, who were out for about six months. They were forbidden to ask for support from other unions, such as the Teamsters, who were bringing in supplies. The President of the Teamsters told me that they were liable to a fine of about 50,000 dollars a. day if they told their members not to take goods in. It
      1990
      was far stricter even than that; if any of his members acted unilaterally, the union was still responsible.
      Ironically, the effect of this was to extend the length of the dispute. We all know the figures for the length of the official disputes in the U.S.A., and one of the reasons is that, because of the rigours of the law, unions in a dispute cannot take secondary action. This tends to solidify the situation: the employers sit it out and the unions have to do the same.
      We are always being told about the detrimental effect of strikes on the British economy. The British economy. unlike the American, cannot sit out strikes. If we want to rejig our union structure so that there are frontal industrial battles lasting for months, not weeks, in the central heavy industries, this is what the legally binding contracts and procedure agreements tend to bring. They bring rigidity, because there can be no movement throughout the period of the deal in question.
      Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member makes this comparison between the position in the United States and the position here. In the automobile industry in the United States, there are, at the end of probably a three-year agreement, these long strikes, which may run, normally, for six or eight weeks—perhaps longer, but that is the normal length. Our own automobile industry lost in 1970 very roughly 25 per cent. of production through strikes. That is 10 weeks in one year. I suggest that six to eight weeks in every three years is preferable.
      Mr. Orme: I do not have the comparative figures here now, but hon. Members recognise that the American strike record last year was about three or four times as bad as our own. The disputes now in the United States are by unions which are acting illegally under American law—by school teachers, refuse collectors, policemen and so on. The hon Gentleman can see from the comparative figures what I am getting at.
      Mr. Heffer: In his very interesting booklet, "Greener Grass", on page 47. Mr. Lowry says:
      "If anything that I have written in this report should give the impression that unconstitutional strikes do not take place in the U.S.A., this must be corrected. Wild cat

      1991
      strikes, as they are called, do take place, and are becoming a cause of increasing concern."
      So, despite all the legal paraphernalia, they still take place and still cause concern.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend underlines what I have said by calling in aid Mr. Lowry, who has wide experience in industrial relations on the employers' side.
      What would be the position if secondary action were to be taken by a registered or an unregistered trade union—let us say it was my union, the A.E.U.W.—circularising its branches asking members to black work done at a certain firm—for example, Fine Tubes? This would be the case of a firm producing a commodity and having sub-contractors which were not directly concerned in the dispute.
      What would be the position if my union had a ballot of members in a district asking them to contribute money with a view to supplementing the strike pay of members on strike? Would that be construed as a secondary act, and would the union be liable? What would be the position if a multi-national company or a large combine with plants in different parts of Great Britain and abroad decided, because of a dispute, to transfer work to a plant abroad? Fords decided to transfer work from a plant in Britain to a plant at Ghent. The workers took action, because they did not want the work to go to Ghent, as the matter had not been cleared properly in the British plant. They warned their brethren in Europe to this effect.
      The Solicitor-General usually bristles when we mention Professor Wedderburn.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. and learned Friend has only said that Professor Wedderburn is not the last word on everything. The professor is an authority, but by hon. Members opposite he is quoted as though he is a paragon.
      Mr. Orme: He is a good authority. His analysis of the situation is as good as that which can be introduced on the Bill. The Solicitor-General does not like the professor's politics. We do not like the Solicitor-General's politics, but we do not question his right to be Solicitor-General, nor do we assert that he is not an adequate or qualified lawyer.
      1992
      Some of the lawyers opposite seem to think that Professor Wedderburn has escaped from the trap and is not playing the game. We pray the professor in aid because he is a most valuable and outstanding authority on American and British law.
      Who is to explain the meaning of Clauses 85 to 87 to rank and file trade unionists and shop stewards? The Solicitor-General would not be a good person to send on that errand. Much more will be heard about these Clauses, because people will be trapped by them when seeking to exercise their fundamental trade union rights. These Clauses will probably be some of the first Clauses which will impinge upon the trade union movement. The unions should study these Clauses in great detail. We can merely vote against this matter.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: I intervene only to make a brief comment on the doctrine or principle of interference, which has had some rough treatment during the debate, and to take up two observations which fell from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) in what I freely concede was a carefully considered opening speech.
      The subsection dealing with the matter of interference is comparatively friendless, and I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has expressed himself as not content with the drafting. For my part, having looked at it, I find the drafting wide and somewhat imprecise. One hon. Gentleman earlier quoted an observation of Sir Winston Churchill in his Liberal days. I can express my view of the drafting in terms of an observation of Sir Winston Churchill in his Conservative days: I can without difficulty confine my enthusiasm within the bounds of decorum.
      But the criticism has gone a good deal wider than the drafting. It has gone to the principle, and I wish now to point out that this principle has a better background of respectability than might have been thought from some of the comments made.
      The hon. Member for Walton quoted the passage in Lord Denning's judgment in the case of Torquay Hotel Company v. Cousins, in which he said:
      "The time has come when the principle should be further extended to cover deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach".

      1993
      The hon. Gentleman did not like those last words, but it is fair to say that the reason for their incorporation was that there was in the contract for the delivery of oil between the Imperial Hotel and Esso an exception clause, a force majeure clause, which freed Esso from liability for non-fulfilment of contract to supply due to labour dispute.
      It follows, therefore, where there is a force majeure clause of that kind that, however great or gross the interference, there can never be any breach of contract. I imagine that that is the reason why Lord Denning expressed himself in that way.
      If it had been a lawyer who had said, "We must look only at whether there was a breach of contract between the parties," we should have come under instant attack from hon. Members opposite, who would have said, "You must not look at this just within the narrow confines of commercial contract. That shows your lawyer-like predilection for these things." But I am turning the tables on the hon. Gentleman. It is he who, at any rate by implication, is now saying that we must look at it in that narrow form, and it is I who, though a lawyer, am saying that we must not look at it merely like that but must look at it in its broad social context. That, I think, was what Lord Denning was doing.
      The other observation that the hon. Gentleman made was that the principle of interference was, in effect, a revolutionary departure in the law relating to these matters.
      Mr. Rose Mr. Rose rose——
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: I realise that when the hon. Gentleman made that observation it was a case of "The hand is the hand of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob", because I realise that he was being prompted. Nevertheless, he was doing it very well.
      Mr. Rose: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is nothing if not amusing. Does he agree that this emphasises the point being made throughout on this side that the implication of giving such wide powers to the judiciary as are being given to what is, in effect, a new industrial branch of the High Court is that the judiciary will be able to make law, just as Lord Denning made law in that case by extending the concept of a breach of contract
      1994
      to the concept of interference with contract?
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think not. The hon. Gentleman is really inviting me to anticipate the content of the next Clause, which, unhappily, we probably shall not be able to discuss. I should be out of order to do so. I would only say in parenthesis that this is all very reminiscent to me. I heard all the same arguments about these matters when I stood night after night at the Dispatch Box 14 or 15 years ago with part-Ministerial responsibility for the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, when we set up the Restrictive Practices Court. Not only did we win in the Division Lobbies, which is important; not only did we win in argument, which is more important; but, most important of all, we won by the test of time and the practical experience of the workings of that Court. Therefore, I must reject the hon. Gentleman's argument on that.
      Mr. Heffer: I should like to set the record straight about my quotation from Lord Denning. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) had no knowledge that I would raise that point.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: In that case the hon. Gentleman did even better than we thought. When the long days and laborious nights of this Committee stage are over, it is not too late for him to read for the Bar. If he joins the Middle Temple and wants a Master of the Bench to sponsor his application and testify to his credentials, I should be only too happy to oblige.
      The principle of interference has a longer ancestry than perhaps we would think from the hon. Gentleman's remark about its being a revolutionary departure. The original concept of inducement to break a contract goes back about 120 years to the case of Lumley v. Gye. If the concept of interference does not go back so far, at any rate the words are found in the celebrated trade union case of Quinn v. Leathem at the turn of the century. In that case the principle was that each of the parties has a right to have the contractual relations with the other duly observed. The judgment there contained the following passage:
      "It is a violation of legal rights to interfere with contractual relations recognised by law if there be no sufficient justification for interference."

      1995
      It is right and proper to say, in explanation of a very good contemporary judge, that it is against that background that Lord Denning made his dictum. But, of course, he did not suggest that interference should be written into the law simply in that general, abstract and undefined term. On the contrary, as we would expect of him, he defined quite precisely the requisites that there must be to constitute interference. There must be, first, a preventing or hindering; secondly, the interference must be deliberate; and, thirdly, the, interference must be direct.
      11.30 p.m.
      These matters do not seem to have been written into the Clause as it stands, and it may be for that reason that my hon. and learned Friend was dissatisfied with the drafting. But I feel that it is right that the Committee should have in mind that the concept of itself in the most strictly defined and more limited form is a respectable concept, and it may well be that, if it is defined by reference to these essential ingredients to which Lord Denning referred, we can, as the House of Commons, properly give statutory effect to the gist of what he said in the Torquay case—that the common law would be seriously deficient if it did not condemn such interference.
      It is the business of Parliament to buttress and reinforce the common law by Statute when it is so required, and that is what, when put into proper form, this Clause, as I see it, seeks to do.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      Mr. Eadie: I cannot hope to emulate the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) because, as must be obvious, I am not a lawyer. But at one point in his charming and witty speech he talked about being "not content", and I thought that perhaps he had some nostalgia for another place. Some of us exercised a self-denying ordinance on the Amendments to this Clause, and I intend my remarks on the Clause to be brief so as to give other hon. Members a chance to take part in the debate.
      The Solicitor-General said earlier that he had been persuaded to some extent
      1996
      that Clause 87 was unsatisfactory in its drafting. However, I have since become somewhat worried in that perhaps some of his hon. Friends are beginning to persuade him that the Clause does not, after all, need so much redrafting. I hope that he will confirm that he will reconsider the drafting. Indeed, I hope that he will eradicate the Clause altogether.
      If Clause 87 is implemented, many good, God-fearing, decent people will probably be in dispute and in violation of the law for the rest of their lives. I want to give a simple example. Sympathy strikes have been mentioned. I have referred before to my experience in the mining industry. One can get sympathy strikes of such a nature that if one were to suggest to the men that they were in violation or in dispute with the law, one would arouse a great deal of ire and would. in fact, probably cause more industrial disputes.
      There was an old tradition in the mining industry whereby whenever a man was killed the pit was idle for that day. This was done for two reasons. The first was that, with the daily toll in the mines, a death was something which people—not only the miners—were distressed about. Secondly, the miners believed that it was the only way in which they could make their protest and teach management to make sure that conditions were safe.
      But they withdrew their labour at a cost to themselves. As time went on, not the management but the union tried to alter that. We tried to persuade miners that we would build up a fund, that there would be contributions from management and union to ensure that dependants received additional compensation. I speak from vivid experience, for my father was killed in the pit.
      It was difficult to implement that scheme. Sometimes we can manage to persuade the men, but lawyers never will. I have had the experience of going to the pit and meeting men walking off the night shift saying that they were going home because John Smith or John Brown had been killed, that they had been saying for weeks that the area was unsafe. They are not always justified, but they go home as a protest.
      The Solicitor-General may institute fines and penalties on men going home,

      1997
      but they fine and penalise themselves by doing so, for, because of the bonus shift system, they lose more than one day's pay. But they do so as a token of their respect to the individual who has been killed and as a protest against unsafe working conditions. No lawyer in the House of Commons could solve that problem, nor compel the miners to work in a section in which a man has been killed if they feel that they will not work, not even if they are penalised, put in gaol and lose their furniture.
      Mr. Tom King: I appreciate the hon. Member's deep feelings on this matter, but it is not lawyers who will do the compelling but the attitude of the employer. Has he any reason to expect a different attitude?
      Mr. Eadie: I do not want to be distracted from my theme. The hon. Member must have heard the contributions of eminent legal gentlemen who suggest that we can solve the problem in a context of legality, within a legal framework. I assume that when he was fighting the General Election the hon. Member himself spoke about a legal framework for industrial relations. I am saying that industrial relations is a human problem which cannot be dealt with in a legal framework.
      I should like to allow time for more hon. Members to speak and I shall curtail what I would have said about the sympathy strike. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said about these disputes. In the mining industry the men take the view, "If you injure one, you injure all." We have had many unofficial disputes, and there have been many in which I have tried to persuade men to go back to work and try to negotiate. I was an official at an unofficial strike. I defend the right to go on unofficial strike, for sometimes there is an increase in productivity as a result and sometimes there is an improvement in the relationship between management and men.
      Under this Clause, managements will be able to indemnify themselves, but if a pit is on strike and the families of the men are suffering, miners in that part of the coalfield will be in violation of the law if they take up a collection for those families. This is a tradition. We have
      1998
      had it for 100 years. Even if they are 100 per cent. wrong, miners will not allow men, women and children to suffer hardship because of money problems.
      If the Government put this Clause into operation, they will put many decent, God-fearing people in such a position that they will violate the law. We were elected to uphold parliamentary democracy and to represent the people. It will be a serious violation of parliamentary democracy if we pass the Clause, never mind the Bill, and place people in such a position that, through no fault of their own, they are in breach of the law.
      The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge the obvious sincerity and force with which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) addressed the Committee. I underline what I have tried to make clear throughout our proceedings. We are not seeking to introduce a law to regulate or transform human relationships in an unrealistic way or attempting to deal with the human and real problems about which the hon. Gentleman was talking. There is no suggestion of remedies being brought to bear against individuals leaving their place of work in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman described. There is no possibility of remedies being sought or invoked against people leaving their place of work or being persuaded to do so on grounds of safety. It is inconceivable that any lawyer will advise under these provisions that proceedings should be commenced against people leaving the coal face in the circumstances described by the hon. Member. It is not our intention, it is not a possibility and it is not the objective.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee fully appreciate the explosive conditions in which industrial disputes can sometimes occur, provoked by misconduct or incompetence by management or by dangerous or adverse conditions. The Bill is not designed to check, and will not have the effect of checking, the ordinary right of industrial protest. But we cannot accept the way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) invited the Committee to approach the problem. He put the matter as widely as this: the right to strike in any form of dispute and to call

      1999
      any form of strike is basic and fundamental and cannot be tampered with. That is an unrealistic and, I suggest, unacceptable proposition in this day and age.
      We live in a country in which the balance of industrial bargaining power is not so adverse to organised labour or to workers as it was 50 or 60 years ago when the law first took its present form. We live in a society in which people are more and more interrelated, and the harm which can be done by precipitate and unnecessary calling of industrial action outweighs the advantage, which can be secured for anyone concerned in it.
      We suggest that it is reasonable to see in what ways the balance needs to be altered. The Committee deceives itself if it does not acknowledge that in almost every other sophisticated modern industrialised society the right to call strikes does not exist in such an unrestrained and unrestricted form as it does in this country.
      Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      The Solicitor-General: I have not very much time. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, I am not seeking to advance a system of industrial relations comparable to that which prevails east of the Iron Curtain. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Poland?] The hon. Gentleman talks about Poland. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Spain and Greece?"] Hon. Members opposite must try to live in the real world. Time and again in these proceedings we have had fanciful speeches suggesting that we are taking the first step towards the corporate State. One does not even understand what this concept with which we are being charged is meant to mean.
      11.45 p.m.
      All we are doing is looking round at almost every other comparable country facing the same kind of industrial problems in the second half of the twentieth century and recognising that balances and checks upon the freedom to induce industrial action are different almost everywhere else and that we are getting further and further behind the field in the industrial race. It is for that reason that we introduce these proposals here.
      2000
      In the context of this Clause my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) both gave a very clear exposition of the basic object of the Clause, and the description of the Torquay case indicated why it is necessary to get away from the maze through which the Torquay hotel proprietors were able to steer themselves. I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for his own very clear exposition of the object of the Clause and his explanation of the words of Lord Denning which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton quoted.
      The intention here is to provide a remedy in respect of procuring deliberately and directly a breach of a contract or deliberately and directly interfering with the execution of a contract. That is the objective, and there is no novelty in trying to achieve that.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport asked me to confirm that it was not intended to restrict strikes designed to prevent entry into a contract. That is not the intention. He invited me to look at the effect of calling strikes intended to bring about the termination of a terminable contract. I will look at that. It is obviously an example taken from the Torquay hotel case. He commented—I have taken a note of what he said—on possible misunderstanding of inclusion of the words "associated employers". Again, the key to the inclusion of those words is the proposition that somebody shall not be taken to be supporting by reason only of the fact that he is an associated employer by reason only of the fact that he is a member of the employers' federation.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith): Then can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the Committee why in Clause 86, when dealing with workers, it is "aiding and abetting" but that when dealing with the employers' side, in subsection (2)(b) of this Clause, it is that
      "he has not … taken any action in material support of a party"
      to the industrial dispute?
      The Solicitor-General: Because I suggest to the Committee that taking any

      2001
      action in material support is a much wider concept than the rather narrower proposition of aiding and abetting, and the employer who has taken any action in material support of another employer party is immediately in jeopardy in this situation. That is certainly the way in which I read it.
      The comparison which might also be made, and has been made by some hon. Members, is the fact that the employer is not to be regarded as supporting by reason only of the fact that he is contributing to a general strike insurance fund, and the parallel to that is that the worker or organisation which is contributing ordinary membership dues whether to the organisation itself or to a federation of workers' organisations is not for that reason supporting or giving assistance to any particular strike.
      I was asked about the extent to which a strike levy amongst the workpeople, either in a given town or in a given group of industries, is raising money to produce funds for workpeople elsewhere on strike. That would not be indirect or supporting action because it would not be action taken to call a strike because it was intended to aid and abet a strike which was unfair. It would only be making money available to people taking part in a strike and would not in itself give rise to any difficulties at all.
      I was asked a number of questions about the Roberts Arundel case, and I hope what I say will not be misunderstood. That case has a long and particularly complicated factual history, with an emotive background, and I will not answer the questions with specific reference to that case. It is right to say in that kind of case that new recognition remedies would provide an alternative earlier remedy. There would be no restraint on any official strike which was subsequently called about the terms which the employer was offering, nor would there be any difficulty about calling a strike designed to persuade suppliers not to renew their contracts, nor on striking against people taking material action in support of the original employing company—
      Mr. Orme: Does that include subcontracting?
      The Solicitor-General: —I am coming to that next—nor on inducing action designed to prevent any new, fresh or further sub-contracting or giving material support to action designed to secure the breach of pre-existing agreements. So sub-contractors would be within the scope of the Clause. I hope that answers the hon. Member's point.
      If I may come back to the more general point—
      Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend about what seems to us to be the exceptional position of employers in relation to strike indemnity funds and the allowability of contributions for tax purposes?
      The Solicitor-General: I have already explained that contributions to a strike indemnity fund of a general kind are in the same category as contributions to a union's strike fund not directed to any particular strike. They are in exactly the same position.
      On the question of tax liability, I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in the answer he quoted. It depends no doubt on the structure and construction of the fund of the association or body. Far be it from me to challenge what the Financial Secretary said about that.
      To come back to the central point with which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton began, he suggested that we are here out-Taft-Hartleying Taft-Hartley. Not so. The points made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) demonstrated how much further American legislation goes, so he says, in attempting to restrain secondary boycotts. It deals specifically with refusal to handle, refusal to deal with, refusal to deliver-blacking is very generally defined. The hon. Gentleman quoted the case of the long General Electric strike; but there is something odd about the criticism being made that we are going unduly far when, on the observations made by hon. Members opposite, it seems that we are not going anything like as far down that particular road, let alone many other roads.
      We come back to the point that there is here a legitimate objective. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery

      2003
      (Mr. Hooson) agreed that it was a legitimate objective, and invited us, as we shall, to look again at the formulation of the Clause. The hon. Member for Walton intervened to quote a sentence or two from Mr. Pat Lowry's book about the situation in the United States. He quoted the first two sentences of the paragraph which I am looking at now which sought to suggest that wild-cat and unconstitutional strikes are a problem in the United States, whatever system they may have there. He did not quote the immediately preceding sentences:
      "The great majority of strikes are constitutional and tend to be lengthy. What is more important, they are a contingency which can be precisely forecast in terms of time and, equally important, they can be planned against with great care. The impact of a strike of this character is therefore much less severe than the more frequent unconstitutional strikes which are so typical of the British situation."
      It is precisely for that reason, against that diagnosis, that I invite the Committee to support the Clause.
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. Sir Robert. You will remember that when we were discussing Clause 86 you ruled that we could make a reference to Clause 87 but we should not go into details. On the basis of that ruling many of us who wished to raise points on Clauses 86 and 87, because we felt that they were linked, waited until the discussion on Clause 87. When Clause 87 came I was fortunate enough to catch your eye. The Solicitor-General said that he would answer questions on Clause 87 when he came to deal with it. He was not in the Chamber at the time, and I understand that, because he had been here for a long time, and, like the rest of us, needed some refreshment. However, I gave him four specific cases on which I asked for his legal opinion. I asked the Under-Secretary to take them down. I gave him a further number of cases on Clause 86 and raised points about a strike fund. At no time have we had an answer to these points from the Solicitor-General. With respect, you said that on Clause 86 we could refer to Clause 87 in passing. We did this, and we had an undertaking from the Solicitor-General that he would answer the points on Clause 87, but we have not had this.
      The Chairman: I have the hon. Gentleman's point. I am able to say that
      2004
      it is not a point of order, because I cannot control exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. All that I can do is to say what would be in order and what would not. There is nothing that the Chair can do to assist the hon. Gentleman. I cannot compel the Solicitor-General to make his speech in a certain way. That is not to say that I do not have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing I can do.
      Mr Rose: If the Solicitor-General refuses to answer my hon. Friend's questions, perhaps he will, at even this late stage, answer some questions. Would he say whether, in his view, under this Clause an ordinary supplier who knows that his supplies are bound to break a strike by giving material support will come under Clause 87(2)? Will he get up and tell us whether this Clause reverses the decision in Thompson and Deakin? Will he give his opinion? He has just got time to do that in spite of the guillotine.
      The Solicitor-General: The question of an ordinary supplier, looked at in the context of Clause 87(2), depends on the words of Clause 87(2)(b). If the ordinary supplier is supplying ordinary supplies in the course of his normal trading relationship, then he has not, in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute, taken action in material support of the party to it. If he changes his trading pattern and begins doing work on a contracting-out basis or a sub-contracting basis, then he allies himself with the primary employer and immediately becomes exposed and cannot complain of strike action taken against him. The person who is following the normal pattern of trading is entitled to stand apart from the issues unless he takes some action to make himself a part of it.
      Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify this a little further? It really is a most fundamental point. What he is saying underlines my point. If there is a long-term contract and the contractor has the contract before the dispute takes place——
      The Chairman: Order, order.
      Mr. Heffer: This is disgraceful.
      It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the Clause stand stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 255.
      [For Division List 167 see col. 2023.]
      Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.

    Clause 88

      ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF INDUSTRIAL COURT
      12.12 a.m.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Lang-stone)(seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Robert. It will be within your recollection that I do not raise bogus or frivolous points of order. Indeed, I have raised only one point of order in the last six years. On this occasion I do so because it seems to me that until this point the Committee has for nine and a half hours behaved in a proper, constitutional and acceptable way to ourselves and the country.
      We have reached a point in time where we have passed from that region of responsible behaviour to the region of utterly irresponsible—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Hon. Members will please allow a point of order to be raised in an orderly manner.
      Mr. Lloyd: A vote has been taken and in that vote the Government have expressed their proper constitutional authority and the Opposition have expressed their proper constitutional disagreement. We have reached a stage where we pass
      2006
      from solemn responsibility to farce and in the next few hours the Committee will wander round and round the Lobbies in such fashion that we do damage to ourselves, to the Government, the Opposition, to the reputation of Parliament and, above all, we are putting the House in a position where it is losing respectability and the respect of the country. I therefore propose that the House should now make procedure its servant and no longer be the servant of procedure.
      Mrs. Castle(seated and covered): Further to the point of order raised by the hen. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). May I support his point of order and his contention that we had a serious and constructive debate up to midnight, when the "chopper" fell, and that it is indeed making a farce of Parliament that at midnight this Committee should be expected to accept on the nod the whole of Part IV of this Bill—26 Clauses, all of them dealing with constitutional issues, all of them dealing with the setting up of a new court and giving new powers to industrial tribunals, not one item of which will have been debated by the Committee, with hon. Gentlemen opposite going through the Lobby like lobby fodder?
      The Chairman: I am afraid that what the right hon. Lady is raising is not a point of order. I wonder whether what she has in mind—what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) had in mind, but could not get to either through force of circumstance—is that we might take the whole of these Clauses and vote for or against them en bloc. Is that what she has in mind?
      Mrs. Castle: No, that is not my point of order. It is that it is not maintaining the dignity and rights of this House to vote en bloc 26 constitutional Clauses, a whole section of the Bill, without having debated a word of it. My point of order is that it is to make a farce of Parliament for Part VI to be voted in its entirety without a word of debate. I therefore call on the Leader of the House to give us more time to debate Part VI. for which we have had no time.
      The Chairman: I am sure the right hon. Lady knows very well that that is not a point of order for me, that she and I and the whole Committee are governed by the terms of the Resolution

      2007
      of the House as set out by the Business Committee. There is nothing we can do about that. In case the matter should be raised again, to save the time of the Committee, may I say—I know that this was not the right hon. Lady's point: this is me saying something for the moment—that it is impossible to take the Clauses all together and vote against them, because it is contrary to the practice of the House and could militate against the right of any minority, however small, to express its opinion against any particular Clause?
      Mrs. Castle: It would be even better if we had time to debate it.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 283, Noes 249.
      [For Division List 168 see col. 2027.]
      Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 89

      EXTENDED SCOPE OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 246.
      [For Division List 169 see col. 2031.]
      Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

    Clause 90

      COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 243.
      [For Division List 170 see col. 2035.]
      Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 92

      COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR TO INDUSTRIAL COURT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPLICA TION UNDER S.77
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)(seated and covered): On a point of order. On page 106 of the Bill it states quite clearly that certain parts of this Measure apply to Northern Ireland, but not all of it. Is it right, Sir Alfred, that Members from the Province should vote in all parts of the Bill, when only some parts of it affect their constituencies?
      The Temporary Chairman: All hon. and right hon. Members may vote on all Measures.
      Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. When the point of order was raised, there were charges made from the other side of the Committee that the Committee might be behaving in a mischievous and irresponsible way. Could you help me to decide what is more mischievous and irresponsible than to vote on a serious Measure which does not affect the constituency which one represents? It is explicit in the Bill that it does not all affect Northern Ireland. Therefore, I ask you, Sir Alfred, to reconsider your answer and to say that those Members who come from constituencies in Northern Ireland should not, in decency, vote on those parts of the Bill which do not affect the Province.
      The Temporary Chairman: The answer which I gave to the hon. Member's first point of order shows that the hon. Members to whom he refers have a perfect right, if they so wish, to vote in the Divisions on this Bill. I must say that I had not noticed any mischievous behaviour, and that part of the hon. Member's question was not a point of order.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 282, Noes 242.
      [For Division List 171 see col. 2041.]
      Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

    Clause 93

      COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR IN CON SEQUENCE OF INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 79
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 281, Noes 241.
      [For Division List 172 see col. 2045.]
      Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 94

      COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 5 OR SECTION 20
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 240.
      [For Division List 173 see col. 2049.]
      Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 95

      COMPLAINT BY INDIVIDUAL OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 62 OR SECTION 66, OR OF BREACH OF RULES
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 238.
      [For Division List 174 see col. 2053.]
      Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

    Clause 96

      COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 77
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 241.
      [For Division List 175 see col. 2057.]
      Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 97

      DETERMINATION OF COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 95 OR SECTION 96
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Michael Clark HutchisonOn a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members to read newspapers in the Chamber?
      The Temporary Chairman: No, it is not. Erskine May states:
      "Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places".
      That applies while a Division is taking place. I must ask hon. Members not to read newspapers.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 279, Noes 240.
      [For Division List 176 see col. 2063.]
      Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

    Clause 98

      TRANSFER OF CASES BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS AND INDUSTRIAL COURT
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 236.
      [For Division List 177 see col. 2067.]
      Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 100

      APPEAL FROM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have a very serious point to raise with you, Sir Robert. I have here for quotation purposes the early morning edition of a newspaper which says:
      "Ted Sacks Clegg."
      Mr. Skinner: Who is Clegg?
      Mr. Lewis: "Clegg" is the unpaid chairman of the Industrial Tribunal for the Civil Service. If some of my hon. Friends want to know who "Ted" is, it is none other than the Prime Minister. Had hon. Members opposite known that the Prime Minister was about to sack "Clegg" without any reason, obviously interfering with industrial relations, that would surely have affected their voting on this Clause. I ask that the vote should be held up until we have Ted here to give an explanation.
      Hon. Members: Where is he?
      Mr. Lewis: I do not know where he is.
      Hon. Members: He is in bed.
      The Chairman: Order. A little banter is not all that bad, but this has nothing to do with the Bill. We are bound by the Resolution of the House as set out by the Business Committee and all we can do is to get on with the work. There is nothing else we can do.
      Mr. Lewis: With great respect, Sir Robert, you said that this had nothing to do with the Bill. However, you may have heard the Solicitor-General say that the Government would be fair and reasonable. Professor Clegg, a Government-appointed independent arbitrator, has been sacked. The Solicitor-General also said that the Government could be trusted to be honest and straightforward. Instead, they have shown that they are dishonest, crooked, and unfair. Surely the Committee should have some explanation before it votes on this Clause.
      The Chairman: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing that I can do as Chairman of the Committee to help him.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 277, Noes 238.
      [For Division List 178 see col. 2071.]
      Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 101

      OTHER APPEALS TO INDUSTRIAL COURT. 1913 c. 30
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 274, Noes 237.
      [For Division List 179 see col. 2075.]
      Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

    Clause 102

      GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 275, Noes 237.
      [For Division List 180 see col. 2079.]
      Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 103

      LIMIT ON COMPENSATION AWARDED AGAINST TRADE UNION
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): On a point of order, Sir Alfred. During the Second Reading debate, I asked the Under-Secretary of State

      2013
      for Employed and Productivity whether legal aid would be available at the Industrial Court in respect of the matters on which we are now voting. He replied:
      "That is a matter which will have to be considered … I say quite frankly that I do not know the answer to that question but I will find out and tell the hon. Member. It will certainly have to be considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1072.]
      My point of order is this, Sir Alfred. Two months have passed since that reply was given, and we are now going through a process of voting on the part of the Bill dealing with the Industrial Court. Still no reply has been given to me, and no information has been given to the House. On the other hand, I understand from comments in the Press that certain assurances have been given to Conservative Members of Parliament who have raised exactly the same question, although the information has been denied to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
      Is it in order to give that kind of reply and then make no statement to the House, yet divulge information to Government back benchers? Second, if we cannot have the argument here, would it not be in order at least to have replies to the questions which have previously been raised set out in a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, since we are denied the opportunity to debate them in the Chamber?
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Much of what the hon. Gentleman has said is not a point of order. By a Resolution of the House we are bound to proceed as we are doing. The other matter is a point of opinion rather than a point of order.
      Mr. Molloy (Seated and covered): Further to that point of order. The Committee must be in some dilemma, and this is a very serious issue. We are discussing something that will play an important part in the courts. It might involve people brought before them, and lawyers. The records of the House will show that it was the intention of one of Her Majesty's Ministers to make a statement to the House to clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend. If that is not done not only will the House and
      2014
      the whole of jurisprudence in the land have been deceived but the whole nation will have been deceived. There will be no confidence in any such law which the House passes unless a statement is made.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion of his. It is not for the Chair to express an opinion on any of those matters. It is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. Can you help me, Sir Alfred? If this matter, which will affect millions of people for whom we are legislating, is not a matter for the Chair, can you tell me how I can safeguard both the interests of the people and the courts and the dignity of Parliament from such abominable behaviour by one of Her Majesty's Ministers?
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a matter on which I, in my capacity of Temporary Chairman, can give the hon. Gentleman any guidance, but he is not new to the House and I am sure that he has the wit to find ways of raising these matters, about which he feels such concern.
      Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. I may have the wit to pursue this matter further, Sir Alfred, and I would ask you now if you would guide me on how we should send for Mr. Speaker to assist us in deciding this issue.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is a Committee of the House, and it is my duty to continue with the Committee proceedings.
      Committee having divided:s 274, Noes 236.
      [ Division List 181 see col. 208.]
      Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

    Clause 104

      LIMIT ON COMPENSATION AWARDED UNDER S. 92, s. 94 OR S. 97
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 236.
      [For Division List 182 see col. 2089.]
      Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 105 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Then 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.

  SCHOOL MILK
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  3.15 a.m.
  Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell): When the Chancellor made his statement on 27th October last and announced to the House that there would be a cessation of school milk to children at primary schools from the age of 7 there was a great deal of consternation on this side of the House. Arising from that, many of us have been addressing very many public meetings. At every public meeting without exception that I have addressed the question of school milk has been posed, because there is great anxiety about the reduction in the nutritional condition of the children who lose this liquid in the schools. At my last meeting, at Holytown in my constituency, one of the principals of one of the higher grade schools put a question to be about it, and coming as it did from such a responsible person it concerned me very much.
  Consequently, I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland which was answered on 3rd February. It asked what action, if any, had been taken by the Minister to seek medical advice before he took this decisive step. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, replied for the Secretary of State and said that no medical advice had been sought. In fairness to him I should add that he did say that if medical advice was required it was, of course, available to him.
  The following day, 4th February, I had a Question along the same lines to the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science. In putting my supplementary question I reminded her that the previous Government, my
  2016
  own Government, had ceased to give free milk to children attending secondary schools and that, much as I felt that that was a retrograde step, I was assured, and the House was assured, that medical advice had been sought before that action was taken.
  In conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), he told me last night that the reply he had received was that if he ceased to give milk to children under 10 it could be a disservice to the health of those children. In fairness to the Labour Government I emphasise that they at least took some action, but the present Administration have taken no action at all.
  Consequently, I feel, and many medical experts feel, that this step will be detrimental to the health of the children attending primary schools. The harm to the health of the children by the decision to stop school milk to the over 7s. is incalculable. The Government's decision is particularly ironic in that it follows a survey by the Queen Elizabeth College School and Nutrition Unit which revealed that only 32 per cent. of the 4,000 children studied could be regarded as having a satisfactory diet.
  A total of 57 per cent. were regarded as unsatisfactory and eleven per cent. as poor. The third of a pint of milk allocated to primary children is a valuable source of calcium. Pupils up to the age of 12 with medical requirements and pupils in special schools will continue to receive milk, so it is difficult to see the logic of an assumption that milk is of benefit to the physical well-being of the mentally deficient but not that of other children.
  The estimated saving in a full year is about £9 million. Yesterday morning, I spoke by telephone to Dr. McQueen, the adviser for the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, which did a survey in Renfrewshire in 1968 after my Government stopped milk in secondary schools. They found that 14 per cent. of secondary pupils and 9 per cent. of senior secondary pupils ate nothing before going to school, and 13 per cent. of secondary pupils and 13 per cent. of senior secondary pupils drank nothing before going to school. Most of these were in the lower income groups.

  2017
  One person who has investigated individuals is Dr. George Lynch, of Queen Elizabeth College, London University. His report, presented in September, 1970, shortly before the Government's White Paper, showed that the withdrawal of milk from the primary school children surveyed would increase the percentage of those deficient in calcium to 34 per cent., assuming no compensatory change in food habits. This question is crucial. One considers what happened when we stopped milk to secondary schools. In 1968–69, the period during which that withdrawal came into effect, the sale of liquid milk declined by 18 million gallons. The Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, Sir Richard Trehane, attributed this decline to a rise in the price of welfare milk and to the withdrawal of free milk in secondary schools.
  When I put the question to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon,-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), the previous Secretary of State, asked in a supplementary question whether she was contemplating legislation to permit the sale of milk in schools, since we had been informed that this was possibly the Government's intention. The right hon. Lady replied that they were contemplating such legislation. I have had talks with the E.I.S.—not on an official basis but with many of its members—and they make it indelibly clear to me that they are not prepared to cooperate in this because it will be an added imposition on the work of teachers, and we all know that there is great difficulty in getting the required number of teachers, particularly in the secondary schools.
  I am not trying to fly the flag of my party when it was in government, because I was bitterly opposed to the action which it took, but in fairness to the Labour Government I should say that I questioned my children after the decision had been taken and every one of them conceded that they did not bother much with milk at secondary school. I do not put that forward as a valid argument because many of the poorer families do not have the necessary milk supplied to them in their homes and this decision will have an adverse effect on the lower income groups. But when we made inquiries about primary school children it
  2018
  was related to us that, in 1969–70, 91 per cent. of the primary school children were taking school milk and, since the introduction of the scheme in 1946 arising from the Education Act, 1944, a steady 90 per cent. of children were taking school milk. We must give careful consideration to this fact if we have any thought for our citizens of tomorrow.
  It has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when this measure is introduced in the summer this year children who have reached the age of seven will continue to get free milk until the summer vacation. Some of the children will attain the age of seven during the summer period and after the summer vacation some children in the same class could be entitled to free milk but other children, because they are over the age of seven, would not. How will we tell the latter children that they are not entitled to free milk?
  I ask the Minister to give very careful thought to this matter. There are many anomalies in this Government decision. It was a niggardly decision. The Government are playing with the health of the children. I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for being present, because I have kept him out of his bed and I have kept you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, out of your bed. But I do not make any apology for raising this subject. I feel strongly about it, and so do my hon. Friends. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to request the Secretary of State to retrace his steps and reverse this niggardly decision which will be detrimental to the well-being of our children.
  3.28 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) for the way in which he has spoken on this subject. While some matters are raised in what I might call a political or controversial way, the hon. Gentleman has the merit of absolute consistency because he complained about the decision of the previous Government and he is now complaining about our decision.
  Before I deal with the basis of the case, I should like to refer to two points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He

  2019
  referred first to the survey which is being conducted by Dr. Lynch, of the Social Nutrition Research Unit at Queen Elizabeth College. This report has still to be published. Dr. Lynch has still not published details of his research, and it cannot be commented on objectively until we have that report.
  The hon. Gentleman then asked whether health departments have ever been advised that school milk must now be stopped for the under 10s. The departments seek advice from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. That body has never said to us or to any previous Government that milk is essential for children over seven or between seven and 10.
  The basis of the hon. Gentleman's comments was to criticise the Government on two points: firstly, that we have decided to discontinue the indiscriminate supply of free milk to all primary pupils over the age of seven and, secondly, that before reaching this decision we did not consult the British Medical Association.
  To take the second point first, so far as I am aware, it has never been the practice to consult the British Medical Association on matters of this kind. The normal practice has been, where this is necessary and appropriate, to consult the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, a United Kingdom body of recognised experts chaired by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science. On this occasion, however, no such formal consultation seemed necessary. We are not proposing to withdraw milk from all pupils over a given age—as the previous Government decided to withdraw it from all secondary pupils. We have made it clear that we intend that any primary school pupil of any age who requires milk on medical grounds will continue to get it free. Of course, all pupils in special schools, of any age, will continue to get it. Since the decision in regard to any particular child is to be left to the school medical officer, formal consultations were not necessary. It is, I think, significant, despite what has been said, that we have had no representations against our decision from any medical body. I appreciate, of course, that we have had representations, but, to my
  2020
  knowledge, no medical body has made representations to us on this decision.
  I turn now to the main issue. All of us recognise that school milk, at first at a nominal charge and since the war free of charge, has in the past helped to ensure the health of our pupils. But times change. We are not living in the 1930s or 1940s, and one-third of a pint of milk on 200 days in the year is no longer, in my view and that of my advisers, essential to ensure that our children are adequately nourished. It is perhaps desirable that the youngest pupils—up to the age of seven—should continue to get it, and there will be some older primary pupils who need it. It will still be provided for them. But we do not think that every other child needs this supplement to the diet provided at home and to the nourishing meals which are provided at school. In our view, this is a saving in public expenditure which can and should be made without any adverse effect on the health of our pupils.
  In view of what the hon. Gentleman and others have said in this House, it should be emphasised that we shall keep the situation under review. We are setting up an adequate and effective monitoring system to check the effect of the change. This will be over and above the constant flow of information about the heights, weights and physical conditions of the many thousands of children examined each year by the school health service. That mass of information confirms what every hon. Member knows from his own observation—that the general state of our children's health is extremely high, and incidentally has improved greatly since the war without any increase in the daily supply of milk which a pupil is entitled to receive at school, so that attempts to argue for a simple cause and effect relationship are quite untenable.
  I repeat that on this occasion we certainly shall maintain a monitoring system to check the effect of the change. All the best available advice which we have had is that no adverse effects should follow to our school children, particularly in view of the safeguard which we have put in about children who are indicated as requiring school milk. But, over and above that, we certainly shall be assessing the effects of the withdrawal.

  2021
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his special interest in the matter, will keep in touch with us to hear how the monitoring system is working.
  There is another point which I should make, because the hon. Gentleman raised it in his speech. One consequence of the action taken by the former Government in 1968—I am sure that it was unintentional—was that education authorities, in being relieved of the duty to provide milk for secondary pupils, were also deprived of the power to provide milk for them at all, free or on any form of payment. We intend to put this right in the legislation which we shall be introducing to give effect to our decision. In future education authorities in Scotland, and in England and Wales, will be empowered to provide milk, on payment, to any of their pupils. It will, of course, be entirely for them to decide if and how to make such provision—in tuck shops, through vending machines, or in any other way.
  I am sure that local authorities will be conscious of the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the supply of teachers and the responsibilties which they have. This should give children not entitled to free milk, but whose parents feel that they should drink milk during the day, an opportunity to do so. Therefore, we are providing this new power to local authorities to sell milk, if they wish, so that children will have the opportunity to buy milk at school, if they or their parents so wish.
  I and, indeed, all my colleagues, and the Secretary of State, who will take a keen interest in all that the hon. Gentleman has said, are conscious of his sincere feelings in the matter. However, I should emphasise that we are on this occasion making provision for children
  2022
  who do need milk. This undertaking will be honoured.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh), Leith): Is it not statistically correct that, by and large, children in Scotland are smaller and less heavy than their counterparts in England and Wales? In these circumstances, does the Minister consider that this factor should be taken into account when it is proposed to discontinue the general supply of milk to Scottish children?
  Mr. Taylor: I have not got actual statistics on this matter. I understand that this was the position and that a previous survey indicated something along those lines. On the other hand, it is fair to point out that the provisions which we have had in the past have applied equally to Scotland, England and Wales. We are conscious of the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But even if we take this into account—of course, things can change rapidly—such matters are often out of date before we get the information.
  While some hon. Gentlemen opposite—I know the feelings of the hon. Member for Bothwell on this matter—feel that this was a wrong decision, I should emphasise that we are providing reasonable safeguards.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way that he made his remarks. Everyone in the House is aware that on the occasions when he speaks on matters of this kind, he speaks with knowledge and sincerity. Certainly on an Adjournment debate at this time in the morning the hon. Gentleman made an agreeable speech.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Four o'clock a.m.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Division No. 167.]

  AYES

  [12 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McMaster, Stanley

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Foster, Sir John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fowler, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Astor, John

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fry, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Awdry, Daniel

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Madel, David

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Balniel, Lord

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Batsford, Brian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E,)

  Mather, Carol

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Bell, Ronald

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mawby, Ray

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Benyon, W.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Biffen, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Blaker, Peter

  Green, Alan

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

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Body, Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernle

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Braine, Bernard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bray, Ronald

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Brewis, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mudd, David

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Murton, Oscar

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neave, Airey

  Bryan, Paul

  Havers, Michael

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nobel, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Normanton, Tom

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Onslow, Cranley

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornby, Richard

  Peel, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

  Percival, Ian

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Cooke, Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Coombs, Derek

  James, David

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Proudtoot, Wilfred

  Cordle, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cormack, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Contain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Critchley, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Redmond, Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Curran, Charles

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhya, Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dean, Paul

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kirk, Peter

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rost, Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Knox, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lambton, Anthony

  St. John-Steves, Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lane, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Eden, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sharples, Richard

  Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

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

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

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Emery, Peter

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

  Simeons, Charles

  Eyre, Reginald

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fell, Anthony

  MacArthur, Ian

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & mington)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Soref, Harold

  Fidler, Michael

  McLaren, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  2024

  2025

  Spence, John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Sproat, Iain

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stainton, Keith

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tilney, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Trew, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stokes, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wilkinson, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Sutcliffe, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tapsell, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Waddington, David

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Temple, John M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walters, Dennis

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Eadie, Alex

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Kelley, Richard

  Allen, Scholefield

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lambie, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Ellis, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Atkinson, Norman

  English, Michael

  Latham, Arthur

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Evans, Fred

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Barnes, Michael

  Fernyhough, E.

  Leonard, Dick

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Beaney, Alan

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foley, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bishop, E. S.

  Foot, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Loughlin, Charles

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Booth, Albert

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  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

  Meacher, Michael

  Concannon, J. D.

  Healey, Rt.Hn. Denis

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mendelson, John

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Milian, Bruce

  Cronin, John

  Horam, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Molloy, William

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Janner, Greville

  Murray, Ronald King

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Deakins, Eric

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  John, Brynmor

  Oram, Bert

  Dempsey, James

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Doig, Peter

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

  Orme, Stanley

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dunn, James R.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Judd, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  2026

  2027

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Pendry, Tom

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Pentland, Norman

  Sillars, James

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Silverman, Julius

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wallace, George

  Prescott, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Watkins, David

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Weitzman, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Probert, Arthur

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Steel, David

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Whitehead, Philip

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Whitlock, William

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Taverne, Dick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Roper, John

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

  Rose, Paul B.

  Tinn, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Tomney, Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. James Hamilton.

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Division No. 168.]

  AYES

  [12.12 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crouch, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Curran, Charles

  Havers, Michael

  Astor, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hawkins, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dean, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

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

  Balniel, Lord

  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

  Benyon, W.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Eden, Sir John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Biffen, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hunt, John

  Blaker, Peter

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Body, Richard

  Eyre, Reginald

  James, David

  Boscawen, Robert

  Farr, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fell, Anthony

  Jessel, Toby

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fidler, Michael

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jopling, Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Brewis, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Foster, Sir John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fox, Marcus

  Kilfedder, James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fry, Peter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bryan, Paul

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Gardner, Edward

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Buck, Antony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Knox, David

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lambton, Antony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gorst, John

  Lane, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Channon, Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Green, Alan

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, Selwyn

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

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Loveridge, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McLaren, Martin

  Cordle, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  2028

  2029

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Made!, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Tebbit, Norman

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Temple, John M.

  Marten, Neil

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Mather, Carol

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Maude, Angus

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Mawby, Ray

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Redmond, Robert

  Tilney, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Trew, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Miscampbeil, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Moate, Roger

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Molyneaux, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Waddington, David

  Money, Ernie

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Rost, Peter

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  More, Jasper

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sharples, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

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

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Murton, Oscar

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Simeons, Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Neave, Airey

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Normanton, Tom

  Soref, Harold

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Nott, John

  Spence, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sproat, Iain

  Worsley, Marcus

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stainton, Keith

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Younger, Hn. George

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Peel, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Percival, Ian

  Sutcliffe, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Tapsell, Peter

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cronin, John

  Forrester, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Freeson, Reginald

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dalyell, Tam

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Darling, Rt Hn. George

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Barnes, Michael

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Golding, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Deakins, Eric

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Booth, Albert

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harper, Joseph

  Bradley, Tom

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Hattersley, Roy

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunn, James A.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hilton, W. S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Eddie, Alex

  Horam, John

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Cant, R. B.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Evans, Fred

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Clark, David (Calne Valley)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Janner, Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Foley, Maurice

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Foot, Michael

  John, Brynmor

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ford, Ben

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  2030

  2031

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

  Milian, Bruce

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Sillars, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Molloy, William

  Silverman, Julius

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Judd, Frank

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Moyle, Roland

  Stallard, A. W.

  Kelley, Richard

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lambie, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lamond, James

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Latham, Arthur

  O'Malley, Brian

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oram, Bert

  Taverne, Dick

  Leonard, Dick

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Orme, Stanley

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tomney, Frank

  Lipton, Marcus

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Torney, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pendry, Tom

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

  McBride, Neil

  Pentland, Norman

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Wallace, George

  McElhone, Frank

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Watkins, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Prescott, John

  Weitzman, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mackie, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Probert, Arthur

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Arthur Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Whitlock, William

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Marks, Kenneth

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Marquand, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Roper, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rose, Paul B.

  Meacher, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Mendelson, John

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Division No. 169.]

  AYES

  [12.25 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bryan, Paul

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Allason, James, Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Buck, Antony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Astor, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Drayson, G. B.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Burden, F. A.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Awdry, Daniel

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

  Eden, Sir John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Balniel, Lord

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Batsford, Brian

  Channon, Paul

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Chapman, Sydney

  Emery, Peter

  Bell, Ronald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Farr, John

  Benyon, W.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fell, Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Biffen, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fidler, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Blaker, Peter

  Coombs, Derek

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Body, Richard

  Cordle, John

  Foster, Sir John

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fowler, Norman

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Costain, A. P.

  Fox, Macus

  Bowden, Andrew

  Critchley, Julian

  Fry, Peter

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Crouch, David

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Braine, Bernard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gardner, Edward

  Bray, Ronald

  Curran, Charles

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Brewis, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Brocklebank-Foster, Christopher

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dean, Paul

  Goodhart, Philip

  2032

  2033

  Goodhew, Victor

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rost, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Green, Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Madel, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh & Whitby)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gurden, Harold

  Marten, Neil

  Simeons, Charles

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mather, Carol

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maude, Angus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Soref, Harold

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Keith

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Spence, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sproat, Iain

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stainton, Keith

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Havers, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hicks, Robert

  Molyneaux, James

  Stokes, John

  Miley, Joseph

  Money, Ernie

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hornby, Richard

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

  Mudd, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Murton, Oscar

  Temple, John M.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  James, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Tilney, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nott, John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Trew, Peter

  Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Owen, Idris (stockport, N.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Peel, John

  Waddington, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kilfedder, James

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wall, Patrick

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Walters, Dennis

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Knox, David

  Pyms, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Lambton, Antony

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lane, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Redmond, Robert

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Younger, Hn. George

  Loveridge, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  McLaren, Martin

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Coleman, Donald

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchan, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Barnes, Michael

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cronin, John

  Barnett, Joel

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cant, R. B. Cunningham, G.

  (Islington, S.W.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Booth, Albert

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  2034

  2035

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

  Kinnock, Neil

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roper, John

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Evans, Fred

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Fennyhough, E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Foley, Maurice

  McBride, Neil

  Sillars, James

  Foot, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silverman, Julius

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackie, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stewart, Rt.Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Golding, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Strauss, Rt, Hn. G. R.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taverne, Dick

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Hamilton, William (Fyfe, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendleson, John

  Torney, Tom

  Harper Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tuck, Raphael

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Milian, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Molloy, William

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wallace, George

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkins, David

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Bert

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Janner, Greville

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  John, Brynmor

  Pannell, Rt.Hn. Charles

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. James Hamilton

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Division No. 170.]

  AYES

  [12.35 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Body, Richard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

  Boscawen, Robert

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bell, Ronald

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Astor, John

  Benyon, W.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Awdry, Daniel

  Biffen, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brewis, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Balniel, Lord

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  2036

  2037

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Holland, Phillip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bryan, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buck, Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia

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

  Burden, F. A.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

  Hunt, John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Channon, Paul

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cooke, Robert

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Coombs, Derek

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cordle, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Curran, Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Sharples, Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

  Lambton, Antony

  Simeons, Charles

  Dean, Paul

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Soref, Harold

  Dixon, Piers

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Speed, Keith

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Spence, John

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Sproat, Iain

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stainton, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eden, Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Stokes, John

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

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Emery, Peter

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sutcliffe, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fidler, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Tebbit, Norman

  Foster, Sir John

  Marten, Neil

  Temple, John M.

  Fowler, Norman

  Mather, CarolThatcher, Rt. Hn.

  Mrs. Margaret

  Fox, Marcus

  Maude, Angus

  Thomas, John (Stradling (Monmouth)

  Fry, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tilney, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Trew, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moate, Roger

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Gorst, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Waddington, David

  Gower, Raymond

  Money, Ernie

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walker-Smith, Rt, Hn. Sir Derek

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wall, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Walters, Dennis

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gurden, Harold

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Murton, Oscar

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Normanton, Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nott, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Havers, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hicks, Robert

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peel, John

  Mr. Jasper More and

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

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  2038

  2039

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Golding, John

  Molloy, William

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ashton, Joe

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Moyle, Roland

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Barnett, Joel

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hardy, Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oram, Bert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Orbach, Maurice

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Orme, Stanley

  Booth, Albert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hilton, W. S.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pendry, Tom

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pentland, Norman

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prescott, John

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cant, R. B.

  Janner, Greville

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  John, Brynmor

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

  Roberts, R t. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

  Concannon, J.D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

  Roper, John

  Cox Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthin)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Cronin, John

  Judd, Frank

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Crosland Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kelley, Richard

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

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

  Kinnock, Neil

  Short,Mrs.Renée (W 'hampton, N.E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Lamond, James

  Sillars, James

  Davidson, Arthur

  Latham, Arthur

  Silverman, Julis

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Spriggs, Leslie

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Dempsey, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Doig, Peter

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Driberg, Tom

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McBride, Neil

  Tinn, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tomney, Frank

  Eadie, Alex

  McElhone, Frank

  Torney, Tom

  Edelman, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Urwin, T. W.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackie, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Evans, Fred

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wallace, George

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

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Watkins, David

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Foley, Maurice

  Marquand, David

  Whitlock, Williams

  Foot, Michael

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Forrester, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mendelson, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Millan, Bruse

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  2040

  2041

  Division No. 171.]

  AYES

  [12.48 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fowler, Norman

  Marten, Neil

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mather, Carol

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mawby, Ray

  Astor, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Balniel, Lord

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Roger

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Molyneaux, James

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Money, Ernie

  Benyon, W.

  Green, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Biffen, John

  Grylls, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Blaker, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Body, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mudd, David

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Murton, Oscar

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Neave, Airey

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Braine, Bernard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Normanton, Tom

  Brewis, John

  Havers, Michael

  Nott, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Buck, Antony

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Percival, Ian

  Burden, F. A.

  Hordern, Peter

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hunt, John

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

  Channon, Paul

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Chapman, Sydney

  Iremonger, T. L. Pym, Rt.

  Wilfred

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  James, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Clark, William ((Surrey, E.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Clegg, Walter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cordle, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N)

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Curran, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rost, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kirk, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

  Knox, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Dean, Paul

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lane, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Simeons, Charles

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Eden, Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Soref, Harold

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Spence, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Sprout, Iain

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Stainton, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Farr, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Fidler, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maddan, Martin

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Foster, Sir John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  2042

  2043

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tebbit, Norman

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wilkinson, John

  Temple, John M.

  Waddington, David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Woodnutt, Mark

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

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Tilney, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Trew, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr Reginald Eyre and

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foley, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ashton, Joe

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Barnes, Michael

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Barnett, Joel

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Booth, Albert

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Molloy, William

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cancannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Bert

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Janner, Greville

  Orbach, Maurice

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jay,Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Cronin, John

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

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davies, Denzil (LlanellY)

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

  Pavit, Laurie

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Peat, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Dempsey, James

  Judd, Frank

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Doig, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

  Roper, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  2044

  2045

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Sillars, James

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Silverman, Julius

  Tinn, James

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Skinner, Dennis

  Torney, Frank

  Whitlock, William

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wallace, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Taverns, Dick

  Watkins, David

  Mr. James Hamilton and

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Division No. 172.]

  AYES

  [1.1 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Dixon, Piers

  James, David

  Alison, Michael, (Bankston Ash)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jessel, Toby

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Astor, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Eden, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

  Kallett, Mrs. Elaine

  Balniel, Lord

  Emery, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kilfedder, James

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Farr, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bell, Ronald

  Fell, Anthony

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Benyon, W.

  Fidler, Michael

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Biffen, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kitson, Timothy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Blaker, Peter

  Foster, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Lambton, Antony

  Body, Richard

  Fox, Marcus

  Lane, David

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gardner, Edward

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brains, Bernard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

  Bray, Ronald

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Brewis, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Loveridge, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacArthur Ian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gorst, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bryan, Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Buck, Antony

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Burden, F. A.

  Grylls, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Madel, David

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Maginnis, John E.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marten, Neil

  Channon, Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mather, Carol

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maude, Angus

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mawby, Ray

  Clark, Wiliam (Surrey, E.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Havers, Michael

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Coombs, Derek

  Hayhoe, Barney

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cordle, John

  Miley, Joseph

  Moate, Roger

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Molyneaux, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Money, Ernle

  Critchley, Julian

  Holland, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Crouch, David

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hordern, Peter

  More, Jasper

  Curran, Charles

  Hornby, Richard

  Morgan Geraint (Denbigh)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  d'Avigdar-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Mudd, David

  Dean, Paul

  Hunt, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Neave, Airey

  2046

  2047

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tilney, John

  Nott, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Onslow, Cranley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trew, Peter

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Pardoe, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Waddington, David

  Peel, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Percival, Ian

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

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Soref, Harold

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Speed, Keith

  Wall, Patrick

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Spence, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stainton, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stokes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Redmond, Robert

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tebbit, Norman

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hilton, W. S.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Horam, John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dempsey, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ashton, Joe

  Doig, Peter

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bager, Gordon A. T.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Barnes, Michael

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Barnett, Joel

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dunn, James, A.

  Hunter, Adam

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnett, Jack

  Janner, Greville

  Bishop, E. S.

  Eadie, Alex

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

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

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Booth, Albert

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  John, Brynmor

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ellis, Tom

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  English, Michael

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Evans, Fred

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Foley, Maurice

  Judd, Frank

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Foot, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Cant, R. B.

  Ford, Ben

  Kelley, Richard

  Carmichael, Neil

  Forrester, John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lambie, David

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lamond, James

  Latham, Arthur

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Leonard Dick

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Coleman, Donald

  Golding, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Cronin, John

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McBride, Neil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hardy, Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  McElhone, Frank

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McGuire, Michael

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mackie, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Deakins, Eric

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maclennan, Robert

  2048

  2049

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Pentland, Norman

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Marquand, David

  Prescott, John

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

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tinn, James

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tomney, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Probert, Arthur

  Torney, Tom

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mendelson, John

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Varley, Eric G.

  Millan, Bruce

  Richard, Ivor

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

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

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Molloy, William

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wallace, George

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Roper, John

  Watkins, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshavve)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)

  Moyle, Roland

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Whitlock, William

  Murray, Ronald King

  Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Sillars, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Oram, Bert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oswald, Thomas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Division No. 173.]

  AYES

  [1.15 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cooke, Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Coombs, Derek

  Goodhew, Victor

  Astor, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gorst, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cordle, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Costain, A. P.

  Green, Alan

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Critchley, Julian

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Balniel, Lord

  Crouch, David

  Grylls, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Curran, Charles

  Gurden, Harold

  Bell, Ronald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Benyon, W.

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Dean, Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Biffen, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dixon, Piers

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hastings, Stephen

  Body, Richard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Havers, Michael

  Boscawen, Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eden, Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Braine, Bernard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Brewis, John

  Emery, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Eyre, Reginald

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Farr, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fell, Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Bryan, Paul

  Fidler, Michael

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Buck, Antony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hunt, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Foster, Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fowler, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fox, Marcus

  James, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Channon, Paul

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Jessel, Toby

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardner, Edward

  Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.]

  Jopling, Michael

  2050

  2051

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Speed, Keith

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Spence, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sproat, Iain

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Mudd, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Kilfedder, James

  Murton, Oscar

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kimball, Marcus

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Heave, Airey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stokes, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Kirk, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Sutcliffe, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Nott, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Knox, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Lambton, Antony

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Lane, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Peel, John

  Temple, John M.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Percival, Ian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Loveridge, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Tilney, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  McCrindle, R. A.

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

  Trew, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tugenthat, Christopher

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Raison, Timothy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Waddington, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Madel, David

  Rees-Davies W.R.

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Marten, Neil

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walters, Dennis

  Mather, Carol

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maude, Angus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mawby, Ray

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rost, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Miller, Dr. M. S

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Shaw, Michael (S'c'h'gh & Whitby)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Moate, Roger

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Molyneaux, James

  Simeons, Charles

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Money, Ernie

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Younger, Hn. George

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  More, Jasper

  Soref, Harold

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  NOES

  Allayn, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ellis, Tom

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Concannon, J. D.

  English, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Evans, Fred

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Bagier, Cordon A. T.

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Barnes, Michael

  Cronin, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnett, Joel

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Bennett, James (Glasgow,Bridgeton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Foot, Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Forrester, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Deakins, Eric

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bradley, Tom

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Dempsey, James

  Golding, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shereditch & F'bury)

  Doig, Peter

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Buchan, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Cant, R. B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hardy, Peter

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edelman, Maurice

  Harper, Joseph

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  2052

  2053

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roper, John

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hilton, W. S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Horam, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Marquand, David

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sillars, James

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Mendelson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Janner, Creville

  Mikardo, Ian

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Stallard, A. W.

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

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  John, Brynmor

  Molloy, William

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taverne, Dick

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Moyle, Roland

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

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Tinn, James

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Tomney, Frank

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Torney, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  O'Malley, Brian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kelley, Richard

  Oram, Bert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lambie, David

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Lamond, James

  Oswald, Thomas

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Latham, Arthur

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wallace, George

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Palmer, Arthur

  Watkins, David

  Leonard, Dick

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pentland, Norman

  Whitlock, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Prescott, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McBride, Neil

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McElhone, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  McGuire, Michael

  Richard, Ivor

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Mackie, John

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

  Division No. 174.]

  AYES

  [1.26 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bray, Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brewis, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Crouch, David

  Astor, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Crowder, F. P.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Curran, Charles

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bruce-Cardyne, J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bryan, Paul

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Buck, Antony

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dean, Paul

  Batsford, Brian

  Burden, F. A.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Bell, Ronald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dixon, Piers

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Paul

  Drayson, G. B.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bitten, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Eden, Sir John

  Blaker, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Clegg, Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Body, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Cooke, Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Coombs, Derek

  Farr, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fell, Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cordle, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  2054

  2055

  Fidler, Michael

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fortescue, Tim

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

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fowler, Norman

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rost, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Galbraith, Hn, T. G.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gardner, Edward

  McLaren, Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sharples, Richard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Shaw, Michael (Scib'gh & Whitby)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Simeons, Charles

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Soref, Harold

  Green, Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Speed, Keith

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marten, Neil

  Spence, John

  Grylis, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Sproat, Iain

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stokes, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sutcliffe, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

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

  Havers, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Money, Erne

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hicks, Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Temple, John M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  More, Jasper

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

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

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mudd, David

  Tilney, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Murton, Oscar

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Trew, Peter

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia

  Neave, Airey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hunt, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nott, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waddington, David

  James, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Peel, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Jopling, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Peyton, Rt. Hn, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Wilkinson, John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Raison, Timothy

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kirk, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kitson, Timothy

  Redmond, Robert

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Knox, Davie

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Lambton, Antony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lane, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cant, R. B.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Booth, Albert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ashton, Joe

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Cooks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Buchan, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Bishop, E. S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  2056

  2057

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dempsey, James

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Doig, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Roper, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rose, Paul B.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sillars, James

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Skinner, Denis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Foley, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Thomason, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Tuck, Raphael

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Urwin, T. W.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wallace, George

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Molloy, William

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oram, Bert

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Division No. 175.]

  AYES

  [1.40 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Body, Richard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Allason, James (Hemet Hempstead)

  Bell, Ronald

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Astor, John

  Benyon, W.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Awdry, Daniel

  Biffen, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brewis, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Balniel, Lord

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  2058

  2059

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hordern, Peter

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hornby, Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Buck, Antony

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John

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

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Carlisle, Mark

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Channon, Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Redmond, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsclale, Julian

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rost, Peter

  Cordle, John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Costain, A. P.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cricthley, Julian

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sharples, Richard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  Curran, Charles

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Antony

  Simeons, Charles

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid Sir Harry

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  kSeet, T. H. H.

  Dean Paul Lee Rt.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Soref, Harold

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Speed, Keith

  Dixon, Piers

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

  Spence, John

  Dodds-Parker Douglas

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sproat, Iain

  Drayson, G. B.

  Loveridge, John

  Stainton, Keith

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dykes, Hugh

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Eden, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Stokes, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sutcliffe, John

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Fid er, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Temple, John M.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marten, Neil

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Fowler, Norman

  Maude, Angus

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

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawby, Ray

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tilney, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gardner, Edward

  Mils, Peter (Torrington)

  Trew, Peter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Miscampbeill, Norman

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Godber, Rt, Hn. J. B.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Goodhew, Victor

  Molyneaux, James

  Waddington, David

  Gorst, John

  Money, Ernie

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gower, Raymond

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  More, Jasper

  Wall, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Walters, Dennis

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Halt, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mudd, David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Wilkinson, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenhein, Mrs. Sally

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Hicks, Robert

  Owen, Idrie (Stockport, N.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hill, James (Southampton, Teat)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Mr Hugh Rossi

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Percival, Ian

  2060

  2061

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Moyle, Roland

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Ogden, Eric

  Barnes, Michael

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Malley, Brian

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oram, Bert

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hattersley, Roy

  Orme, Stanley

  Bishop, E. S.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oswald, Thomas

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Booth, Albert

  Horam, John

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bradley, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pendry, Tom

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prescott, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Janner, Greville

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  John, Brynmor

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Robertson, Jahn (Paisley)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Roper, John

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Cronin, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kelley, Richard

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

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

  Kinnock, Neil

  Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamond, James

  Sillars, James

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Latham, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leonard, Dick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Spriggs, Leslie

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Dempsey, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Doig, Peter

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Driberg, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  McGuire, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ellis, Tom

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  English, Michael

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Evans, Fred

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wallace, George

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

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

  Watkins, David

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marquand, David

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Foot, Michael

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mendelson, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Millan, Bruce

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Golding, John

  Molloy, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gordan Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  2062

  2063

  Division No. 176.]

  AYES

  [1.54 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mawby, Ray

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Astor, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Balniel, Lord

  Gorst, John

  Moate, Roger

  Batsford, Brian

  Gower, Raymond

  Molyneaux, James

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Money, Ernie

  Bell, Ronald

  Green, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Benyon, W.

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Biffen, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Morris, Charles (Devizes)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mudd, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hastings, Stephen

  Normanton, Tom

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Havers, Michael

  Nott, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bray, Ronald

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Brewis, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Percival, Ian

  Buck, Antony

  Hordern, Peter

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Burden, F. A.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hunt, John

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

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Charmon, Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Chapman, Sydney

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Jessel, Toby

  Redmond, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Coombs, Derek

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cordle, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rost, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Curran, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kirk, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dean, Paul

  Knox, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lambton, Antony

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

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lane, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Dixon, Piers

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Simeons, Charles

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Drayson, G. B.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Soref, Harold

  Eden, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Speed, Keith

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Loveridge, John

  Spence, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sproat, Iain

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

  McCrindle R. A.

  Stainton, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinhurgh,W.)

  Farr, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fell, Anthony

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stokes, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Fortescue, Tim

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fowler, Norman

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mather, Carol

  Tebbit, Norman

  2064

  2065

  Temple, John M.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Waddington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Tilney, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Trew, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Younger, Hn. George

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr Jasper More and

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Foley, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Barnes, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Barnett, Joel

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Molloy, William

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaws)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aheravon)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Concannon, J. D.

  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

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest C.

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dempsey, James

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Doig, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur W. Ham N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus Sheldon,

  Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sillars, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  2066

  2067

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tomney, Frank

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Torney, Tom

  Whitlock, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wallace, George

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

  Watkins, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Tinn, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Division No. 177.]

  AYES

  [2.5 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Eden, Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Astor, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Emery, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kirk, Peter

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Balniel, Lord

  Fell, Anthony

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Batsford, Brian

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knox, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fidler, Michael

  Lambton, Antony

  Bell, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lane, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fowler, Norman

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Biffen, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fry, Peter

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Boardman, Torn (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Loveridge, John

  Body, Richard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Bowden, Andrew

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Goodhart, Philip

  McMaster, Stanley

  Brainy, Bernard

  Gorst, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Bray, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Brewis, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForost)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Green, Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Madel, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Bryan, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  Marten, Neil

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mather, Carol

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maude, Angus

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby, Ray

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mils, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Channon, Paul

  Havers, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Paul

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

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Molyneaux, James

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Money, Ernie

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Cooke, Robert

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Coombs, Derek

  Holt, Miss Mary

  More, Jasper

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Cordle, John

  Homily, Richard

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Contain, A. P.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Mudd, David

  Crouch, David

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hunt, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Curran, Charles

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Heave, Airey

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nicholls, Sr Harmar

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  James, David

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Dean, Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Nott, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Dixon, Piers

  Jopling, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Drayson, C. R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  2068

  2069

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

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

  Trew, Peter

  Peel, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Percival, Ian

  Simeon, Charles

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Soref, Harold

  Waddington, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Spence, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

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

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stainton, Keith

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wall, Patrick

  Raison, Timothy

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Redmond, Robert

  Stokes, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Reed, Laurance(Bolton, E.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Sutcliffe, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridley, Hn. Nichola

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

  Wilkinson,John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Rossi, Hugh

  Temple, John M.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rost, Peter

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Younger, Hn. George

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Tilney, John

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Sharples, Richard

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Saiford, E.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  John, Brynmor

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunnett, Jack

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Eddie, Alex

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Barnett, Joel

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  English, Michael

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, Fred

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Judd, Frank

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kelley, Richard

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lambie, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Foot, Michael

  Lamond, James

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

  Ford, Ben

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Forrester, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Leonard, Dick

  Buchan, Norman

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cant, R. B.

  Golding, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McBride, Neil

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McElhone, Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hardy, Peter

  McGuire, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackie, John

  Cronin, John

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hattersley, Roy

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hefter, Eric S.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hilton, W. S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Horam, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Marquand, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Doig, Peter

  Hunter, Adam

  Mendelson, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Mikardo, Ian

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

  Millan, Bruce

  2070

  2071

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Molloy, William

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Richard, Ivor

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Moyle, Roland

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Roper, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ogden, Eric

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Oram, Bert

  Shore, Rt, Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wallace, George

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Watkins, David

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Sillars, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitlock, William

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Pendry, Tom

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stewart, Rt Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Prescott, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shiley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Division No. 178.]

  AYES

  [2.18 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Havers, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Curran, Charles

  Hicks, Robert

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hiley, Joseph

  Astor, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dean, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hordern, Peter

  Bainiel, Lord

  Dixon, Piers

  Hornby, Richard

  Batsford, Brian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Bell, Ronald

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hunt, John

  Benyon, W.

  Eden, Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Biffen, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  James, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Blaker, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Fell, Anthony

  Jopling, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fid er, Michael

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Braine, Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bray Ronald

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kilfedder, James

  Brewis, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fry, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Buck, Antony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Knox, David

  Burden, F. A.

  Godher, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lambton, Antony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lane, David

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

  Goodhew, Victor

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gorst, John

  Legge,Bourke, Sir Harry

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Channon, Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Green, Alan

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

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  MacArthur, Ian

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McLa an, Martin

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Cordle, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McNair-Willon, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maddan, Martin

  2072

  2073

  Madel, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  Temple, John M.

  Marten, Neil

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Mather, Carol

  Pym, Rt Hn. Francis

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Maude, Angus

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Mawby, Ray

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Redmond, Robert

  Tilney, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Trew, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Moate, Roger

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Molyneaux, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Waddington, David

  Money, Ernle

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Rost, Peter

  Walder, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  More, Jasper

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Sutcliffe, John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sharples, Richard

  Wall, Patrick

  Mudd, David

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

  Walters, Dennis

  Murton, Oscar

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Simeons, Charles

  Warren, Kenneth

  Neave, Airey

  Sinclair, Sir George

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nott, John

  Soref, Harold

  Wilkinson, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Speed Keith

  Walrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Spence John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sproat lain

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stainton Keith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stanbrook Ivor

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Peel, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Percival, Ian

  Stokes, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Peyton, Rt, Hn. John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Garrett, W. E.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Delyell, Tam

  Ginsburg, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Arthur

  Golding, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Deakins, Eric

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Booth, Albert

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hattersley, Roy

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Driberg, Tom

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Bradley, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Hilton, W. S.

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Horam, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Eadie, Alex

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Buchan, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Edwards, William (Mcrioneth)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn(Anglesey)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Cant, R. B.

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Fred

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

  Janner, Greville

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  John, Brynmor

  Cohen, Stanley

  Foley, Maurice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Foot, Michael

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ford, Ben

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Cronin, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  2074

  2075

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Judd, Frank

  Molloy, William

  Sillars, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silverman, Julius

  Kinnock, Neil

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lambie, David

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Lamond, James

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Latham, Arthur

  Moyle, Roland

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stallard, A. W.

  Leonard, Dick

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Oram, Bert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Orme, Stanley

  Taverne, Dick

  Lipton, Marcus

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Loughlim, Charles

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tinn, James

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tomney, Frank

  Peart, Rt, HN. Fred

  Torney, Tom

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pendry, Tom

  Tuck, Raphael

  McBride, Neil

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Varley, Eric G.

  McElhone, Frank

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  McGuire, Michael

  Prescott, John

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mackie, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wallace, George

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Probert, Arthur

  Watkins, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wellbeloved, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Richard, Ivor

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Whitlock, William

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

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Marquand, David

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

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Roper, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Meacher, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mendelson, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Division No. 179.]

  AYES

  [2.29. a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Channon, Paul

  Fowler, Norman

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fox, Marcus

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fry, Peter

  Astor, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gardner, Edward

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Baker, Kenneth (St.Marylebone)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cooke, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Coombs, Derek

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cordle, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bell, Ronald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Costain, A. P.

  Gower, Raymond

  Benyon, W.

  Crouch, David

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Green, Alan

  Biffen, John

  Curran, Charles

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dalkeith,

  Earl of Grylls, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Body, Richard

  Dean, Paul

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dixon, Piers

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Braine, Bernard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Haselhust, Alan

  Bray, Ronald

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brewis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Havers, Michael

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Eden, Sir John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Bruce-GardyNe, J.

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bryan, Paul

  Emery, Peter

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

  Buck, Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Farr, John

  Holland, Philip

  Burden, F. A.

  Fell, Anthony

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hordern, Peter

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

  Fidler, Michael

  Hornby, Richard

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  2076

  2077

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

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

  Hunt, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Soref, Harold

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Moate, Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Molyneux, James

  Spence, John

  James, David

  Money, Ernle

  Sproat, Iain

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stainton, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Jopling, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stokes, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Mudd, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Murton, Oscar

  Sutcliffe, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kilfedder, James

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Nott, John

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Temple, John M.

  Kirk, Peter

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Kitson, Timothy

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Knox, David

  Peel, John

  Tilney, John

  Lambton, Antony

  Percival, Ian

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Lane David

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Trew, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

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

  Proudfoot,Wilfred

  Waddington, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Loveridge, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Redmond, Robert

  Wall, Patrick

  McLaren, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Weatherill, Bernard

  McNair-Wilson, Michacl

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Maddan, Martin

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Model, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rost, Peter

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Marten, Neil

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mather, Carol

  Scott, Nicholas

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Sharples, Richard

  Younger, Hn. George

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Simeons, Charles

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Driberg, Tom

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Ashton, Joe

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dunnett, Hugh

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnes, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Edelman, Maurice

  Barnett, Joel

  Concannon, J. D.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Wedgwood Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crawshaw, Richard

  English, Mitchael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cronin, John

  Evans, Fred

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fernyhough, E.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

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

  Booth, Albert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Davies, Denzil (LlanellY)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Foot, Michael

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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Ford, Ben

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreclitch & F'bury)

  Deakins, Eric

  Forrester, John

  Buchan, Norman

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Freeson, Reginald

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dempsey, James

  Galprn, Sir Myer

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Doig, Peter

  Garrett, W. E.

  Cant, R. B.

  Dormanct, J. D.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Golding, John

  2078

  2079

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Richard, Ivor

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McBride, Neil

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Griffith, Eddie (Brightside)

  McElhone, Frank

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roper, John

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackie, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hardy, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Sillars, James

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Silverman, Julius

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Millan, Bruce

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hunter, Adam

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Janner, Greville

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Taverne, Dick

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  John, Brynmor

  Moyle, Roland

  Tinn, James

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Ogden, Eric

  Torney, Tom

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oram, Bert

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Judd, Frank

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wallace, George

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Palmer, Arthur

  Watkins, David

  Kinnock, Neil

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lambie, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lamond, James

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Latham, Arthur

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pentland, Norman

  Whitlock, William

  Leonard, Dick

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Prescott, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Division No. 180.]

  AYES

  [2.41 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brewis, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Curran, Charles

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Astor, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bryan, Paul

  Dean, Paul

  Awdry, Daniel

  Buck, Antony

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dixon, Piers

  Balniel, Lord

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Batsford, Brian

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Carlisle, Mark

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Channon, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Biffen, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Emery, Peter

  Blaker, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Farr, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fell, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Boscawen, Robert

  Coombs, Derek

  Fidler, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cordle, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fortescue, Tim

  Braine, Bernard

  Costain, A. P.

  Fowler, Norman

  Bray, Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Fox, Marcus

  2080

  2081

  Fry, Peter

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

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gardner, Edward

  Loveridge, John

  Rost, Peter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Scott, Nicholas

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Goodhart, Philip

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sharples, Richard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Cower, Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Simeons, Charles

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Green, Alan

  Madel, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Soref, Harold

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marten, Neil

  Spence, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Mather, Carol

  Sproat, Iain

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stokes, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sutcliffe, John

  Havers, Michael

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moate, Roger

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Molyneaux, James

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Money, Ernle

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

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

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Temple, John M.

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Mudd, David

  Tilney, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Murton, Oscar

  Trafford, Dr, Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nicholls, Sir Harman

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  James, David

  Nott, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waddington, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Jopling, Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Peel, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Percival, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kelfedder, James

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wilkinson, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kirk, Peter

  Raison, Timothy

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Redmond, Robert

  Worsley, Marcus

  Knox, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Lambton, Antony

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lane, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Castle, Rt, Hn. Barbara

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  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.

  Barnett, Joel

  Buchan, Norman

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Cronin, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Booth, Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davidson, Arthur

  2082

  2083

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Batersea, S.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dempsey, James

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

  Prescott, John

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Judd, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-On-Tees)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Fred

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sillars, James

  Foley, Maurice

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  Foot, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackie, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Gording, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Taverne, Dick

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Tinn, James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Tomney, Frank

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Torney, Tom

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hamilton, William (Fife, w.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wallace, George

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Molloy, William

  Watkins, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Murray, Ronald King

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Janner, Greville

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Joseph harper and

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Division No. 181.]

  AYES

  [2.53 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bray, Ronald

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Benyon, W.

  Brewis, John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Biffen, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Astor, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Blaker, Peter

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Body, Richard

  Buck, Antony

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Balniel, Lord

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Burden, F. A.

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Bell, Ronald

  Braine, Bernard

  Carlisle, Mark

  2084

  2085

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Channon, Paul

  Hunt, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  James, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Raison, Timothy

  Clegg, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cockeram, Eric

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Redmond, Robert

  Cooke, Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cordle, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crouch, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Curran, Charles

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dalkeith,

  Earl of King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Kirk, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Dean, Paul

  Kitson, Timothy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Knox, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Dixon, Piers

  Lambton, Anthony

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lane, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Simeons, Charles

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dykes, Hugh

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eden Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Soref, Harold

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Speed, Keith

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

  Loveridge, John

  Spence, John

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sproat, Iain

  Eyre Reginald

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stainton, Keith

  Farr, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fell, Anthony

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fidler, Michael

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stokes, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fowler, Norman

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fox, Marcus

  Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest

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

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maude, Angus Thatcher, Rt.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gardner, Edward

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple, John M.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Tilney, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Trew, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gower, Raymond

  Moate, Roger

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Molyneaux, James

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Green, Alan

  Money, Ernle

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Grylis, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Waddington, David

  Gummer, Selwyn

  More, Jasper

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Well, Patrick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mudd, David

  Walters, Dennis

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Warren, Kenneth

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neave, Airey

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Havers, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wolrige-Gordon, Partrick

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Holland, Philip

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Peel, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Hornby, Richard

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  2086

  2087

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Golding, John

  O'Malley, Brian

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Oram, Bert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ashton, Joe

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Barnett, Joel

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hardy, Peter

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Pentland, Norman

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Booth, Albert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Prescott, John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hilton, W. S.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Horam, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bradley, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cant, R. B.

  Janner, Greville

  Roper, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Rose, Paul B.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Sillars, James

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silverman, Julius

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cronin, John

  Judd, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Neil

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lambie, David

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lamond, James

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Davis, Clinton(Hackney, C.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Tinn, James

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Torney, Tom

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Urwin, T. W.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Varley, Eric G.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Driberg, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dunn, James A.

  McBride, Neil

  Wallace, George

  Dunnett, Jack

  McCartney, Hugh

  Watkins, David

  Eadie, Alex

  McElhone, Frank

  Wellbeloved, James

  Edelman, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackie, John

  Whitlock, William

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Evans, Fred

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marquand, David

  Molloy, William

  Foley, Maurice

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Foot, Michael

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher, Michael

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mendelson, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Murray, Ronald King

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Millan, Bruce

  Garrett, W. E.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  Ginsburg, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  2088

  2089

  Division No. 182.]

  AYES

  [3.4 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

  Astor, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moate, Roger

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gorst, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gower, Raymond

  Money, Ernie

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Balniel, Lord

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Batsford, Brian

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  More, Jasper

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Benyon, W.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mudd, David

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Biffen, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Blaker, Peter

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Body, Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Boscawen, Robert

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Brewis, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Peel, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Holland, Philip

  Percival, Ian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hordern, Peter

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hornby, Richard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buck, Antony

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Raison, Timothy

  Carlisle, Mark

  James, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Redmond, Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cooke, Robert

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Coombs, Derek

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cordle, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rost, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Crouch, David

  Kinsey, J. R.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott, Nicolas

  Curran, Charles

  Kitson, Timothy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Sharples, Richard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knox, David

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

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

  Lambton, Antony

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Dean, Paul

  Lane, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dixon, Piers

  Le Marchant Spencer

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Soref, Harold

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Speed, Keith

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Spence, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Eden, Sir John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

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

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Emery, Peter

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stokes, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fell, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fidler, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Mather, Carol

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fox, Marcus

  Maude, Angus

  Temple, John M.

  Fry, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Galbraith, Hn. T, G.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gardner, Edward

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  2090

  2091

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Tilney, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wall, Patrick

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Trew, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Worsley, Marcus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Younger, Hn. George

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Waddington, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Tim Fortescue

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wilkinson, John

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foot, Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Barnes, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Barnett, Joel

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marquand, David

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mendelson, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Millan, Bruce

  Bottemley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Molloy, William

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healoy, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Ogden, Eric

  Cant, R. B.

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Carmichael, Neil

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Malley, Brian

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oram, Bert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Orbach, Maurice

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orme, Stanley

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Hunter, Adam

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cronin, John

  John, Brynmor

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Prescott, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Judd, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richard, Ivor

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Leonard, Dick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Rt. Hn.William (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lever, Rt. Hn, Harold

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sillars, James

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, Fred

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McBride, Neil

  Spearing, Nigel

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

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  2092

  2093

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wallace, George

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Watkins, David

  Tinn, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tomney, Frank

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Torney, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mr. Kenneth Mars.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Whitlock, William

  Urwin, T. W.

  William, Alan (Swansea, W.)

ENVIRONMENT
  Building Control Act, 1966
  Building Control Act, 1966
  London Housing
  London Housing
  District Heating Schemes
  District Heating Schemes
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Council House Programmes
  Council House Programmes
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Site Clearance, Demolition and Slum Clearance
  Site Clearance, Demolition and Slum Clearance
  Fair Rents
  Fair Rents
  Council Houses and Flats (Condensation)
  Council Houses and Flats (Condensation)
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Construction Industry (Output)
  Construction Industry (Output)
  Builders' Companies (Liquidation)
  Builders' Companies (Liquidation)
  Brent (New Accommodation)
  Brent (New Accommodation)
  Illicit Excavations
  Illicit Excavations
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Francis Committee (Report)
  Francis Committee (Report)
  Tower Blocks
  Tower Blocks
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Private Architects' New Commissions
  Private Architects' New Commissions
  Royal Parks (Charges for Sports Facilities)
  Royal Parks (Charges for Sports Facilities)
  National House-Builders' Registration Council
  National House-Builders' Registration Council
  Housing Lists (Service Families)
  Housing Lists (Service Families)
  Housing
  Housing
  Building and Construction Industry
  Building and Construction Industry
  Building Contractors (Materials)
  Building Contractors (Materials)
  Government Hospitality Fund
  Government Hospitality Fund
  Statutory Undertakers (Planning Procedures)
  Statutory Undertakers (Planning Procedures)
  London Bridge and Victoria Stations (Approaches)
  London Bridge and Victoria Stations (Approaches)
  Housing Lists (Service Families)
  Housing Lists (Service Families)
  Pavements
  Pavements
  Sewage Disposal (Working Party's Report)
  Sewage Disposal (Working Party's Report)
  Entertainments (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Entertainments (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Regional Policy (Growth Points)
  Regional Policy (Growth Points)
  House Improvement Programme
  House Improvement Programme
  Planning Committees (Rights of Appeal)
  Planning Committees (Rights of Appeal)
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Wetherby Spur
  Wetherby Spur
  Thames Barrage
  Thames Barrage
  Pilot Conservation Schemes (Bath, Chester, Chichester and York)
  Pilot Conservation Schemes (Bath, Chester, Chichester and York)
  Green Belt Land
  Green Belt Land
  Sewerage Schemes
  Sewerage Schemes
  Heathrow Airport (Access)
  Heathrow Airport (Access)
  Housebuilding (Land)
  Housebuilding (Land)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Trunk Roads and Motorways (Expenditure)
  Trunk Roads and Motorways (Expenditure)
  Planning Blight (Compensation)
  Planning Blight (Compensation)
  Local Authority Meetings (Admission of Press)
  Local Authority Meetings (Admission of Press)
  Motorway Routes (Draft Proposals)
  Motorway Routes (Draft Proposals)
  Birmingham-Nottingham Motorway
  Birmingham-Nottingham Motorway
  Community Relations Councils
  Community Relations Councils
  Desalination
  Desalination
  Forestry (Planning Control)
  Forestry (Planning Control)
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Derelict Land Clearance
  A5, Shrewsbury
  A5, Shrewsbury
  Planning Appeals (Residential Development)
  Planning Appeals (Residential Development)
  Hull-Beverley Road and Beverley Bypass
  Hull-Beverley Road and Beverley Bypass
  Wash (Fresh Water Storage)
  Wash (Fresh Water Storage)
  Dorchester By-Pass
  Dorchester By-Pass
  Sydling (Water Extraction)
  Sydling (Water Extraction)
  A64 (Malton By-Pass)
  A64 (Malton By-Pass)
  Vehicles (Sites for Breaking Up)
  Vehicles (Sites for Breaking Up)
  Rivers (Oil Pollution)
  Rivers (Oil Pollution)
  Local Authorities (Co-operation)
  Local Authorities (Co-operation)
  Peak National Park (Traffic)
  Peak National Park (Traffic)
  Planning Appeals (Ancient Buildings)
  Planning Appeals (Ancient Buildings)
  Private Housebuilding (Planning Consent)
  Private Housebuilding (Planning Consent)
  Portsmouth (Capital Allocation)
  Portsmouth (Capital Allocation)
  Empty Properties (Rates)
  Empty Properties (Rates)
  Northern Economic Planning Council
  Northern Economic Planning Council
  Valuation of Property
  Valuation of Property
  Manchester (Speakers' Corner)
  Manchester (Speakers' Corner)
  Warrington (Redevelopment Finance)
  Warrington (Redevelopment Finance)
  Industrial Noise
  Industrial Noise
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Howley Power Station, Warrington (Pollution)
  Howley Power Station, Warrington (Pollution)
  Smokeless Zones
  Smokeless Zones
  M62
  M62
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Neasden By-pass
  Neasden By-pass
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Rate Rebates)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Rate Rebates)
  Compensation Code
  Compensation Code
  Severnside Study
  Severnside Study
  Al, Archway-Highbury Corner
  Al, Archway-Highbury Corner
  Gipsy Caravan Sites
  Gipsy Caravan Sites
  B.B.C. V.H.F. Television Transmitter, Shropshire
  B.B.C. V.H.F. Television Transmitter, Shropshire
  Warrington (River Bollin Water)
  Warrington (River Bollin Water)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Wool Textile District)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Wool Textile District)
  Ancient Monuments (Season Tickets)
  Ancient Monuments (Season Tickets)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Wythenshawe Civic Centre
  Wythenshawe Civic Centre
  Canals and Inland Waterways
  Canals and Inland Waterways
  A414, High Wych
  A414, High Wych
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Lorries (Safe Loading)
  Lorries (Safe Loading)
  Public Service Vehicles (Two-tone Horns)
  Public Service Vehicles (Two-tone Horns)
  Chester Committees Report' on Football
  Chester Committees Report' on Football
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Rawmarsh U.D.C. (Traffic Commissioner's Procedures)
  Rawmarsh U.D.C. (Traffic Commissioner's Procedures)
  British Railways (Services)
  British Railways (Services)
  Traffic (Weight and Width Restrictions)
  Traffic (Weight and Width Restrictions)
  Bristol (New West Dock)
  Bristol (New West Dock)
  Skyways
  Skyways
  Railway Services (London Area)
  Railway Services (London Area)
  Traffic Lights
  Traffic Lights
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Welsh Harp Neighbourhood Social Amenity
  Welsh Harp Neighbourhood Social Amenity
  Football Crowds (Behaviour)
  Football Crowds (Behaviour)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
  Rugby Sports Centre
  Rugby Sports Centre
  Local Authorities (Traffic Management Powers)
  Local Authorities (Traffic Management Powers)
  Articulated Lorries (Jack-knifing)
  Articulated Lorries (Jack-knifing)
  Gatwick Airport (Hotel)
  Gatwick Airport (Hotel)
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Temporary Accommodation (Homeless Persons)
  Temporary Accommodation (Homeless Persons)
SCOTLAND
  Clyde Steamer Service
  Clyde Steamer Service
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Overseas Migration
  Overseas Migration
  Geriatric Beds (Lanarkshire)
  Geriatric Beds (Lanarkshire)
  Teachers (Shortage)
  Teachers (Shortage)
  Children Bicyclists (Proficiency Tests)
  Children Bicyclists (Proficiency Tests)
  Weekend Dental Services
  Weekend Dental Services
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  West Central Special Development Area
  West Central Special Development Area
  Possum Equipment
  Possum Equipment
  New Fishing Boats
  New Fishing Boats
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services
  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters)
  Forestry Commission (Headquarters)
  Teachers (Probationers)
  Teachers (Probationers)
  Brucellosis-free Herds
  Brucellosis-free Herds
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Edinburgh (Opera House)
  Edinburgh (Opera House)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Packaged Goods (Weights)
  Packaged Goods (Weights)
  Japanese Textiles
  Japanese Textiles
  Exports (Prices)
  Exports (Prices)
  European Technology
  European Technology
  Maritime Industrial Development Areas
  Maritime Industrial Development Areas
  Mediator Air Traffic Control System
  Mediator Air Traffic Control System
  Credit (Crowther Committee's Report)
  Credit (Crowther Committee's Report)
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
WALES
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Rural Primary Schools (Closure)
  Rural Primary Schools (Closure)
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
AGRICULTURE
  Cattle Foods
  Cattle Foods
  Straw
  Straw
  Feeding Barley
  Feeding Barley
  Hay
  Hay
  Feeding Maize
  Feeding Maize
  Pig Foods
  Pig Foods
  Cattle Grids
  Cattle Grids
  Amalgamation Grants (Northern Ireland)
  Amalgamation Grants (Northern Ireland)
  CONSUMER COUNCIL'S REPORT "JUSTICE OUT OF REACH"
  CONSUMER COUNCIL'S REPORT "JUSTICE OUT OF REACH"
DEFENCE
  European Defence Improvement Programme
  European Defence Improvement Programme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Learning Problems
  Learning Problems
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Secondary School Places (Manual for Guidance)
  Secondary School Places (Manual for Guidance)
  Archaeological Heritage (European Convention)
  Archaeological Heritage (European Convention)
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Procedure Agreements
  Procedure Agreements
  Legal Staff
  Legal Staff
  Departmental Staff (Conciliation Work)
  Departmental Staff (Conciliation Work)
  Price Increases (Nationalised and Private Industries)
  Price Increases (Nationalised and Private Industries)
HOME DEPARMENT
  Wolverhampton (Urban Aid Programme)
  Wolverhampton (Urban Aid Programme)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Statutes and Regulations (Treaty of Rome)
  Statutes and Regulations (Treaty of Rome)
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Camden (Boundary Changes)
  Camden (Boundary Changes)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Herr Rudolph Hess
  Herr Rudolph Hess
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licence Fees
  Television Licence Fees
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Post Office Employees (Sick Pay)
  Post Office Employees (Sick Pay)
  Claims and Payments (Post Office Strike)
  Claims and Payments (Post Office Strike)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment Grants and Capital Allowances
  Investment Grants and Capital Allowances
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD
Mark Allin, Lord Bishop of Hereford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl Poulett—took the Oath.

POSTAL DISTRICTS IN NORTH EAST LONDON
2.42 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, in view of public misapprehension that Postal Districts E.17, E.11, E.10, E.4 and E.5 are in East London, whereas they cover parts of North-East Greater London whether representations can be made to the Post Office more correctly to designate those areas as a North-East District.]
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords. I understand that the designation of these postal districts flows from postal operational requirements, which are a matter for the Post Office.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply and appreciating its content, may I ask, nevertheless, whether he could make representations to the Post Office on this matter as I have suggested, seeing that although East London is as worthy a district as Westminster or West London the present designation is misleading and many people become embarrassed accordingly? May I also ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the late Sir Winston Churchill sat for Woodford and Wanstead, which certainly could not be designated East London?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of some of those facts. But it is very definitely right that this is a matter for the Post Office and it is up to them to make up their minds whether to make this change. I shall not make an approach to the Post Office, but it is perfectly in order for the noble Lord himself to do so if he wishes.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord will not help them to make up their minds?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that their reasons for having made up their minds on this particular issue are very good ones.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does that mean that the Minister pays more attention to the needs of machines than to the needs of people?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the Minister is not responsible in this case.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am very sad to hear that.

RABBIT CLEARANCE AND MYXOMATOSIS
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: 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 view of their decision to withdraw grants from rabbit clearance societies while continuing the legal obligation on individual farmers to destroy rabbits, they will agree to an amendment of the Pests Act, removing the clause which makes it a criminal offence to spread myxomatosis.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, myxomatosis is still thought to be the biggest single factor contributing to the control of the rabbit population, killing between 70 and 95 per cent. of the rabbits which contract it, and as it continues to occur at irregular intervals in areas wherever large colonies of rabbits are building up, there is no justification to spread it deliberately. Nothing would, in fact, be gained by doing so. It should not be overlooked that the deliberate use of myxomatosis might well give rise to a

585
relaxation of the more traditional methods of control which still have an important part to play. These, my Lords, are the logical reasons for not making any change in the law as it now stands, but there are also humanitarian reasons. Her Majesty's Government believe that it would be as repugnant to the vast majority of the people of this country to allow this unpleasant disease to be spread artificially as it was in 1954 when the legislation prohibiting it was enacted.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his considerate reply, which I think is a very acceptable one. Since he has raised the question of humanitarianism, I wonder whether the Agricultural Departments could be asked to publish an authoritative veterinary report showing how much pain is inflicted by nature on the animal which suffers from this disease and which appears to go on feeding happily till it dies. Also, is my noble friend aware that the main objection appears to be to the animal's disgusting appearance, but that rabbits do not have any looking-glasses?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is very difficult to issue an authoritative report on this matter, because there must be a lot of conjecture. There are a great many thoughts about this disease but nothing is 100 per cent. known. For instance, a rabbit which has the disease will carry on eating and, in certain circumstances, will carry on mating. But, on the other hand, a rabbit which has the disease will definitely flinch when it goes through undergrowth. It is thought that there is certainly a great deal of discomfort, but to what extent there is pain nobody can quite say. It is very difficult to tell in an animal. If my noble friend were, say, to put down a question for Written Answer one might be able to expand on this matter a little. But I do not think anyone can give any categorical rules as to how much pain there is.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is quite sure that myxomatosis is not introduced into certain areas in Scotland, mainly in Sutherland?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, I am not quite sure; but we have no reason to assume that it is being introduced. If my noble friend thinks that he knows of any cases, I shall be very glad to hear of them.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much money has been saved by the withdrawal of grants from rabbit clearance societies?
LORD DENHAM: Half a million pounds, my Lords.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in some parts of the country, including Epping Forest, rabbits seem to have been immune to myxomatosis? Can the noble Lord say why?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. To a certain extent I can say why; but again we do not know very much for certain. There are certain strains of this disease which are not very virulent and these, if they do not kill the rabbit, will give it immunity for a certain length of time. There is some thought at the moment that it may be that immune strains of rabbits are being produced, though here again we are not quite certain, and research is being done on it.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether we can get any guidance from the Ministry to help us eliminate rabbits, because they are corning back in full strength?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness quite a lot of guidance myself on this subject, but I do not think this is quite the time or the place to do so.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that although we are doing our share in this matter it is not improving the situation at all? The rabbits are still coming back in full strength, and we need further research and guidance on this matter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Baroness applies to the appropriate authority, I think she will find that she will get all the guidance that is available.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether any prosecutions have been brought for spreading myxomatosis; and, if so, how many, and when?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I could say, and the answer is, No.

THE SINGLEPOINT SIGHT
2.50 p.m.
LORD DULVERTON: 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 consideration has been given to the provision of the Singlepoint sight as an item of small arms equipment in Her Majesty's Forces.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, full consideration has been given. Trials have shown that the Singlepoint sight has certain merits at short range in jungle conditions. For general use, however, existing sights and those due for introduction into service in the near future, all of which are of British design and manufacture, are considered to be more suitable than the Singlepoint sight.
LORD DULVERTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for the courtesy of his reply. May I ask him whether he is aware, not only of the tests which have been carried out on this piece of equipment in the Jungle Warfare School in the Far East, in which Commonwealth and foreign forces are showing very great interest, but also of the tests which have been carried out by our own S.A.S. and parachute forces in various parts of the world, who think that it is unequalled and unsurpassed as a piece of ancillary equipment under conditions that are likely to be met with by the forces to-day, not only in jungle conditions but in conditions as far afield as the deserts and the Arctic?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am fully aware of the reports of the Jungle Warfare School to which my noble friend has referred, and I would only draw his attention to the fact that a number of controlled tests have been carried out at the Infantry Trials and Development Unit at Warminster where this particular sight was found to be not advantageous compared
588
with the current iron sight. However, I fully accept the fact that there are conditions in which this particular sight is of benefit. My noble friend has referred to the S.A.S. They are of course continuing trials with this piece of equipment, and we shall be interested to know how they get on with it.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, can my noble friend give a very brief description of the difference between the Singlepoint sight and the one to which we are all accustomed?
EARL FERRERS: I could, my Lords, but it would be rather complicated, and I think that if the noble Lord were to look at a photograph he would find it a great deal easier to understand than ever I could explain.

NORTHERN IRELAND DISORDERS
LORD SHINWELL: 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, arising from the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, any measures are intended other than the presence of British Forces to deal with disorder and outbreaks of violence in the Six Counties.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Northern Ireland Government are continuing their efforts to remove the underlying causes of the social and economic problems of Northern Ireland through their wide-ranging reform programme and their measures to attract new industry to the Province. All this will be successful only if peace and order are maintained.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I, in the circumstances, ask the noble Lord a series of brief supplementary questions? The first is this: what were these two right honourable gentlemen talking about? What was the purpose of the visit of the Premier of Northern Ireland to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? What were they talking about? Was it merely a courtesy visit,

589
or for the purpose of having a cup of tea or a drink? I think that question ought to be answered: we ought to know what these two gentlemen were talking about. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that only a small, indeed insignificant, minority of people in the Six Counties are responsible for these acts of violence; and, furthermore, that there is a vast reservoir of good will among ordinary Roman Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland whose efforts at good will and desire for peace should be harnessed for the purpose of creating a new sentiment in Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that I am not anxious to bring the troops away from Northern Ireland? They are there, and they are doing a very good job. Perhaps they ought not to have gone, because that is not their role; but in the circumstances—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD SHINWELL: These are questions, and very important questions. In the circumstances, on the death of two young soldiers, which we all deplore, is it not desirable that some new method should be devised in order to bring this trouble to an end? I do not mean by interfering—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHINWELL: Is the noble Lord aware that I do not mean by interfering with the Constitution of Northern Ireland, nor am I opposing partition—nothing of the sort. I do not mean that by political methods—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHINWELL: But some method should be devised in order to bring this trouble to an end. And is it not time that this complacency on the part of the United Kingdom Government came to an end?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we all appreciate the noble Lord's concern with this subject, and I will try to answer a little more briefly some of the points he raised. The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland met at Chequers over the week-end. They discussed the current situation in Northern Ireland and the measures necessary to meet it. The noble Lord is quite right
590
when he says that the current phase of shootings and violence in the streets is a new development. These are not the same as the large-scale sectarian riots that used to occur, and there has been a noticeable improvement in the lessening of sectarian tension. The crowds are much smaller, and the present violence is being committed by extremists who are small in number but who, at the same time, we must recognise, are a very dangerous group of men. We can agree with what the noble Lord said about the moderates in both communities and the need to try to build on the good will which exists. We would also underline what he said with regard to the fortitude and the patience with which the Armed Forces are carrying out their duties.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious that the Army is going to be there for a very long time and that this involves a great deal of courage on the part of the troops and also entails a great deal of expenditure? May I put a further question to the noble Lord, if he can answer it? Why are there rude noises on the opposite Benches when I am asking a quite reasonable question? Are Members there trying to provoke me? Because if they are, I may retaliate.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, British troops are in Northern Ireland at the request of the Northern Ireland Government to aid the civil power, and they will remain so long as that purpose is called for. It is not for me to comment on the second point raised by the noble Lord.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, while I agree with troops being in Northern Ireland, can the noble Lord assure me that we shall not get manœuvred into the position in which we were in 1919, when there were troops who were regarded as Black and Tans?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, to turn back to the past troubles of Northern Ireland or to speculate on the future is not very profitable. The Question referred to the immediate situation, and that is what I have dealt with in my answers.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask one question? Is any recompense paid to individuals who

591
supply information concerning arms dumps or concealed weapons in Northern Ireland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice, but I will send the answer to the noble Lord.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on the Post Office dispute at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (ORE BERTH) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Orders Nos. 36 and 42 having been dispensed with (pursuant to the Resolution of February 16 last), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM rose to call attention to the problems raised for both prisons and prisoners by long-term prison sentences, and in particular to the conditions under which such sentences are served; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said:
592
My Lords, as I begin to speak to the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, may I express the hope that the distance at which this debate follows the one initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, last December is a proper measure of the respect, albeit affectionate respect, and admiration which we all have for the noble Lord's concern with prisoners and their reform. At the same time, I hope that by focusing on a particular area of concern it will be a useful supplement to his debate in which, unfortunately, I could not join because I was in Jamaica. I need hardly say that I bring to this debate no long experience, no long years of study in this subject; but I should like at the outset to acknowledge my gratitude to the Governor and staff of Durham Prison for the facilities which they offered me and for their patience with my inquiries.
Why did I put down this Motion for debate? The answer is simple. It was because I realised that following our decision on hanging we are likely to have a far greater number of long-term prisoners than heretofore. The abolition of hanging, like all moral reforms, brings with it consequential moral problems, problems not to be ignored but to be faced all the more resolutely. What are we doing about the increasing number of prisoners who now receive long-term sentences? The matter is more urgent when we note, as was pointed out in a recent article in New Society,
"the increasing tendency of judges to incorporate in their sentences 'recommendations' for a minimum term of anything up to 30 years. (The cases of Harry Roberts and the Kray brothers are just well-known examples)."
The article continued:
"…fixed sentences of over 14 years are increasing (the train robbers, the Richardson gang)"—
to take no other examples. So,
"The 40,000 prisoners now in English jails include a rapidly growing number of men who face very long sentences."
There were altogether about 1,100 prisoners in 1969 serving sentences of 10 years or more. To gain some idea of the growing problem—we may talk about "humps" and "plateaus" and the rest if we wish to be more particular—we may recall that at the end of 1958, 139 prisoners were serving life sentences; by 1963 there were 329 and by 1968 there were almost 600.
What, now, are the problems for prisons and prisoners that these long-term sentences involve? Under what conditions do they serve these sentences? For the sake of clarity we must recall that my phrase "long-term prisoners" covers prisoners in what are known as categories A and B. Category A prisoners are prisoners
"whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or to the police or to the security of the state."
I am quoting from the publication, People in Prison. These number somewhat under half of those with whom this Motion is concerned. To quote further from that same publication:
"Almost all convicted category A prisoners are serving sentences of 10 years and over, and about 40 per cent. are serving life sentences. They are not a homogeneous group in other respects. They include one or two spies, and a considerable number of professional criminals, most with violent records, some of whom have associates outside who might be willing to help an escape. About one-third are dangerous sexual offenders whose escape would endanger the public but who present no particular threat while in custody."
Category B are prisoners
"for whom the very highest conditions of security are not necessary but for whom escape must be made very difficult."
Of these two categories I shall be rather more concerned with category A, but most of my remarks will apply to both.
What, then, are the problems of these men? The basic difficulty is psychological, personal and spiritual, or all three according to taste. How do we, in the words of the well-known Rule 1 of the Prison Rules 1964
"… encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life"?
Common to all these prisoners is their fear of deterioration. A specific case was quoted by two members of a research project, Stanley Cohen and Laurie Taylor, writing in New Society, in the article to which I have already referred:
"Roy recalls how some screws tried to reassure him on these grounds when he arrived in the wing to start his 25 year sentence: Look at Jones', they said, pointing to the top landing, 'He's been in for nearly 20 years and he's perfectly content.' Roy would not accept this consolation: 'How could I know if he was content? Anyway, what is he content about?'. Like other long-term prisoners, Roy had a continuous fear of psychological deterioration—a deterioration which was particularly appalling because it would creep up on him without
594
his awareness, to become apparent when he was released.
"The long-term prisoners all feel like this. One evening they all sat discussing the future programme for the class. The regular group was trying to decide when would be the best date for the class. 'Well, Stan's here on Friday', said Paul. 'Monday', said Roy; To-day's Friday, you're going.' I'm not—anybody could make that mistake. My mother gets the days mixed. There's nothing special about that.' The incident is trivial, but it is enough to indicate the continual watching for deterioration, and the concern about not becoming obsessional—about not becoming like the old sex offender who spends hours merely cleaning and filling the teapot.'"
This problem of a man's deterioration is one which standard psychological tests do little to reveal: it is something rather concerned with the thoughts and fears that men have inwardly, as we would say.
I well realise that at this point some (not of your Lordships but perhaps some outside) will say, "But this is surely what prisons ought to be like." Further, let the deplorable and appalling conditions in prisons be publicised outside as much as possible; posters outside banks and outside football grounds"—a correspondent in The Times said as much some months ago. "Here would be a wonderful deterrent". My own view, as your Lordships may guess, is utterly opposed to that attitude. I agree with what is said in the publication People in Prison:
"The deterrent effect of imprisonment lies in the loss of liberty it involves, and in the restrictions inherent in any prison régime. There is no reason to suppose that it would be made more effective by reverting to such barbarities as the treadmill. On the contrary, measures designed to preserve and enhance a man's dignity and self-respect are most likely to assist in his rehabilitation."
In other words, prisons themselves, in restricting liberty, effect their punishment; that being secured, there must then be every opportunity to help a man to preserve his dignity and self-respect.
The same two requirements, the same two variables in the one function, are mentioned in the introduction to an account of our first psychiatric prison—Grendon Underwood—published in a hook called The Frying-Pan by Tony Parker. We read:
"Small maximum-security units, in remote and inaccessible parts of the country, from

595
which the inmates cannot and do not escape"—
the one necessity; and then they:
"… can therefore allow a humane and permissive régime within."
That is the other feature. As a background to this view I would refer briefly to Sir Walter Moberly, who argues in his book, The Ethics of Punishment, that punishment cannot rid itself of an ethical element which, he says—to my mind rightly—it must "symbolise". Only then does punishment cease to be a mere menace:
"Its moral quality—that which raises it out of the category of mere menace and makes it truly 'punishment'—lies just in that symbolic reference."
When there is wrongdoing there is moral deterioration in the wrongdoer himself; and from the moral standpoint of society that evil-doing of one of its members calls for a counter activity. But society cannot rightly remain indifferent or inactive. For that reason punishment comes to have restrictive and reformatory overtones. In brief, what we do in our prisons must reflect both our opposition to crime on the one hand and our moral evaluation of personality on the other.
There was a day when, I regret to say, even with the support of theology, prisons were intended, by their conditions of silence and oppression, to bring about penitence for wrongdoing. The cell was supposed to be a cubicle providing the very conditions in which men got rid of what would have been called their moral disease so as to be fit again for a normal life. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, remarked in that earlier debate:
"It is significant that there appears to be nobody wishing … to voice the old view that one should make prisons as uncomfortable and as horrible as possible because that would deter people from ever risking coming back to them. That is a view, current in the 19th century, which has now been rejected. It was found that the effect of that kind of régime was to brutalise rather than to deter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/12/70, col. 576.]
What we must recognise, my Lords, is that the earlier view was both too naïve and also too negative a view of humanity; and, if I may say so, of the Christian Gospel as well. What we have to do is to provide prisons with the security that they must have to restrict the freedom of serious offenders; and then, secondly,
596
with conditions inside which reflect the evaluation of personality which characterises society at its best. People are sent to prison as a punishment, not for punishment. They are sent to prison for restoration. And so in the case of long-term prisoners we come back to the problem: how do we express both the disapproval—the moral judgment—of society on the crime and also the moral ideal which society has for humanity?
My Lords, I make no apology whatever for bringing together in this way the law and morality, for those who object to this link—to what perhaps they would call a moralistic view of punishment—do not, I believe, reject the moral appraisal which I have given, though they do reject what they would regard as outdated moral views. And what now, in practice, matches these background reflections? How far do they illuminate the problem which prisons and prisoners have with long-term sentences? First, in the matter of prison buildings and prison staffs undoubtedly there must be security. The publication, People in Prison, shows one security control centre with closed circuit television; but it prompted one reader at least—myself—to ask, "But how many more prisons have that amenity?". For I should guess that many prisons are woefully out of date regarding making use of modern technical developments in this field.
What is the alternative? It is the locking, unlocking and locking again of innumerable doors, with the chains to which the keys are attached clanging against the very metal of the doors. The image, for prisoner or visitor, is inevitably of people being caged in. My experience, such as it is, supports the authors of the New Society article when they say that top security wings are "relatively clean, warm and well-equipped"; though it is only fair to say that they add, "by British standards anyway". But some provisions for security can undoubtedly be psychologically oppressive. The exercise yard may have a most inviting tennis court painted on the tarmac; but if it is small, the players are more likely to be overwhelmed by the outer high brick wall and the inner chain link fence with coiled barbed wire at the top. I assure you, my Lords, that that would not be the easiest environment in which to experience the self-releasing thrill of a game of tennis.
Secondly, the other view of what prisons were for was matched by the view which the prison officers took of their jobs; which was largely that of keeping a constant or suspicious eye on the prisoner. But as our views of prisons and punishment change, so our view of the work of a prison officer must change; and we should expect them, as many do, to begin to see the social significance of their work and the need to help, and not only to inspect, the prisoner. At the same time, we must recognise, with a sympathetic understanding of the prison officer's difficulties, that there is almost inevitably a tension between these different attitudes and approaches. When, for some reason, that tension becomes unbearable fear can predominate, and we have prison officers uniting unanimously in resolutions against hanging. Let it be granted that the immediate physical conditions of category A prisoners are far better than those of other prisoners. That, of course, is to say very little; but let it be granted that their single rooms can be intrinsically attractive. But the wider context is often one of extreme restriction. When I saw in one prison room two budgerigars in a cage, I dared not ask whether the birds were ever allowed the freedom to fly around the room. It was almost significant that the birds never sang.
So we come to the prisoners themselves. If we are to prevent their present dissolution, if there is to be any chance of rehabilitation and restoration, two conditions are surely necessary: first, they must have the opportunity to learn creative relations with other people, and, second, they must be helped to find themselves. They must rediscover their identity. In this matter the profession of religious beliefs or the acceptance of some dominant ideal will be of great help. But what, in the event, do we find?
First, a word about visitors. A prisoner in a security wing commented that even when they have the satisfaction of work, if there are no visitors, "some part of you is missing." "Visitors," he said, "keep you human." But there are extraordinary difficulties about visiting. I recognise that from the nature of the case many of the visitors themselves will have criminal records and tendencies, but does that mean we are to deprive
598
prisoners of the only friends they have? The wife of a prisoner, who was herself serving a prison sentence, was unable to visit her husband in custody, because, ironically it seems to me, she was not serving a long enough prison sentence. Further, I can appreciate what lies behind the requirement of photographs and the various precautions before visits are agreed. But it would seem that there is a head-on conflict between security requirements and the welfare of the prisoners, and the sooner security is reliably provided so that regulations can be relaxed, the better it will be all round. Ought not someone to take a long, cool look at visiting arrangements?
Secondly, there are problems arising from relations with fellow prisoners. Top security wings in a general prison do not make for a good atmosphere in the prison as a whole; the inmates are the aristocracy, and they are known to be so. But among long-term prisoners themselves there are fundamental difficulties. Take the case of those who have committed offences against children. I quote from a recent article in the TV Times about such a prisoner.
"If he's never been inside before, he knows he's in for it from that first cup of cocoa. Two hours before the judge had given him 14 years for an offence against a child. And there he was in the prison reception with 13 years 364 days and 22 hours stretching ahead of him like a great black smog.
"Had he been lucky he might have been taken to a special unit at a place like Grendon Hall or Shepton Mallet. If he's lucky later on—maybe in a year or 18 months—he might still get there. But right now he is in an ordinary prison with ordinary criminals."
The article continues:
"He might as well be a skinned rabbit flung into a pool of piranha fish.
"If he hasn't already had a sly kick in the groin in the van that brought him and the others from the court-house, he'll know his fate when he gets that first cup of cocoa.
"There will almost certainly be salt in it, or someone's spittle. A taste of what they think of him, and what they are going to do to him, a surly overture to 14 years of viciousness and degradation during which a group of human beings can purge their own misery by taking it out on him.
"Even when things are quiet, when there is no immediate physical persecution, the child offender is totally ostracised. He can't ask anyone to play him a game of draughts, for example. If he tries to strike up a chat

599
with someone they'll spit in his face and turn their backs."
The article continues:
"The only hope they have is the prison chaplain or priest. He is about the only type of person they can approach for some kind of human response."
And it concludes:
"To put sexual offenders in ordinary prisons is about the worst running torture that man can devise against another. Especially as they are not really criminals. They are sick men and should be treated as such."
Here is another nest of problems, and apart from the need for closer analysis it would seem that there will be no solution until we have faced searching questions about the best distribution of prisoners, a major reorganisation of our prisons and fundamental rethinking about the size of our prisons and their physical construction. How far, I ask, when prisons are built are there roundtable conferences between architects, prison staffs, social workers and the rest?
Thirdly, undoubtedly the possibility of doing satisfying work in prison is of immense help in keeping a man from deterioration. But here, too, the matter is not without its problems. From what I can judge from talking to prisoners there is little that is satisfying about mailbag work. More satisfying work is handicraft, decorative iron-work, cooking, the study of symbolic logic, and not least a service for society in providing Braille books. But the more satisfaction the work gives and can give, the more the question occurred to me: how does this fit into a planned programme for the man? Here is a man studying symbolic logic, who can draw the specific of an article. I was bound to wonder, to what purpose? Is it part of a planned career for this man's future? Is there a planned programme? More important, does the plan work out?
Merely to offer a man constant changes of work, making them more akin to a temporary hobby, and even changes of prison, within the context of a sentence which in his mind is entirely indeterminate, is in itself unsettling and, far from helping to strengthen his moral fibre, tends to weaken it. A long-term
600
prisoner told me just that, though he was appreciative of the work given to him and of the help it gave him.
We have noted earlier how significant a profession of faith can be in the circumstances of a prison and how the sheer loneliness of a man can often be helped by the chaplain's ministry. Should not a much more explicit provision be made for prison worship in top security wings? Of course, chaplains visit security wings. But, so far as I am aware—though I may well be wrong—there are no services held there. Prisoners cannot leave the security wing to attend religious services. But I wonder how impossible this is as a security risk. Could not those who wished it go, say, in tight custody once a month? Alternatively, could there not be a chapel in the security wing? Durham prison used once to have its security wing chapel, but when it was smashed up by the men themselves it was never refurnished. I have made the suggestion to the Governor that the prisoners who wish for a chapel might be encouraged to furnish it themselves. Let not past errors make impossible a different view!
Speaking more generally, if long-term prisoners are to be helped, must we not recognise the need to look at them individually? Two men with the same record, the same crime and the same sentence may react utterly differently to a life sentence. I realise that there is already a classification exercise at the start of a prisoner's career. But I should like to suggest that this reception interview needs to be far more thorough and far wider in its range, which should embrace remedial teaching and vocational training with an eye to present needs and future expectations, keeping a man from deteriorating inside prison, and equipping him for life outside. This naturally means that we need far more people to do this diagnostic work. Yet without this, how can we ever be sure that we are in fact encouraging a prisoner, in the words of Rule 1, to lead a good and useful life?
Not only are systems of parole vital for all prisoners, they are, I suggest, of the highest possible importance for long-term prisoners who need a proportionately long, slow and progressive return to the outside world. I once myself experienced a period of eight months in hospital and I can still recall what a

601
profound shock it was for the first few weeks to return to the normal interchange of common life. How much more shock to a man after 10 years in prison? Do we not need, in the case of long-term prisoners, more novel pre-release schemes, extending over years, which will help people to adjust to the many problems which lie before them when they leave prisons? Is it not in this context that the question of marital intercourse can best be arranged? For let us recognise that of a sample taken of 45 prisoners, only one marriage, it would seem, had lasted beyond these years of separation. Do we not need to extend the hostel scheme? Could there not be half-way houses, perhaps quarter-way houses or even eighth-way houses, to be used as guidance centres? I recall that the Prison Department in Chicago as part of its prerelease schemes takes accommodation in the Y.M.C.A. The next question I address to myself. Is there here possibly a use for large redundant vicarages? I am sure that my colleagues on this Bench can take up this question. If we are not prepared to make these experiments, or say that we cannot afford them, do we not ourselves stand condemned by the very prisoners whom we have sentenced? Punishment must never itself fail when judged by the same moral criteria on which it is based.
I should like to conclude with four broad reflections and suggestions. First of all, like all of us, I am well aware that there is an immense need for educating public opinion, and fresh evidence of that need will no doubt come in the letters of abuse that some of us will receive when the postal strike is over. There must be a change of attitude towards prisons as there has already been towards schools and hospitals. If not all of us, many of us recall the days when schools were places of segregation. When I think of my own primary school, woe betide the parent who dared cross the threshold! It was worse for her or him than for the boys or girls. In hospitals, patients were incarcerated; and the old comparison between mental hospitals and prisons is too painfully familiar to need development.
I know that there are important differences between prisons and hospitals, as between hospitals and schools. But all three are concerned alike with the well
602
being of man in society. It is high time that projects were mounted for the better education of the public in all matters to do with prisons and prisoners. Walls of security there undoubtedly must be. But there must be no walls preventing understanding, discussion, influence and concern. Here mass media could play an important part, not least one which in the case of long-term prisoners gave the whole question a balanced treatment rather than an atmosphere of exciting notoriety. I need not ask your Lordships what most people know about the County of Durham, or Durham City, in particular. It would not be the cathedral, magnificent though it is; and it would not even be the prison: it would be one part of the prison. Yet in that prison there is a strong group of the Church of England Men's Society. But it stops short of the security wing.
Secondly, I do not doubt that the whole question of staffing, and especially the inter-relationship of the various services, needs a thorough consideration and radical re-thinking, not least the relation between prison officers and probation and welfare officers, if we are ever to integrate, as is wholly desirable, facilities in prison and the outside world. I appreciate the enormous difficulties under which our prison officers work at present. In some ways their unsettlement is only paralleled, so far as I can see, by the unsettlement in the Christian ministry. But I also sense a certain incoherence in our prison structures. Is it too much to hope that this and much else might be the subject of a high-powered inquiry?
Next I make a suggestion that would involve little financial expenditure, though it would not be spectacular and its chief demand would be time. In some ways it links together my first and second broad points. I think it would me invaluable if arrangements could be made for there to be at various centres throughout the country regular meetings of those concerned with the prisons and the welfare of the prisoners—judges, magistrates, lawyers, police, social workers, probation officers, medical officers, prison officers and so on—who would speak quite frankly of the difficulties they find in the present situation and discuss what might be done to meet some of the problems that I have aired and which will be aired in this debate to-day.
I am sure that the Church would do all they could to provide the machinery for bringing such groups together. I am under no apprehension that it would be easy. The writer of The Frying-Pan says quite frankly in Chapter 14 of his book:
"Almost without exception the doctors and medical staff of Grendon disagreed with my being given permission by the Home Office to go there. The idea of a writer staying day after day, week after week and month after month, and talking to whom he liked about what he wished, was not acceptable; and before my arrival they agreed among themselves they were going to give me neither approval nor co-operation."
Fortunately, one doctor was exceptional and he remarked:
"We perpetually question ourselves, and it's right that other people should perpetually question us."
That, my Lords, is what I am suggesting.
Lastly, as I have thought about the problems of prisons and prisoners, I have come to the conclusion that probably no idea or suggestion in this area would be entirely new. We already have the in-service training of prison officers; there is work for prisoners; there are reception interviews and selection categories; in one prison at least closed-circuit television is used for security. It might be said, "What more do we want? Do not our prisons and prison services give evidence of excellent ideas?" But almost without exception these ideas seem to stop short of practical fulfilment, and seem to be stultified in practice, as when men allotted to training centres in fact never arrive there.
In the earlier debate, a reference was made to "experiments" at Bristol and Norwich. Not being present at the debate, I turned excitedly to Hansard. Here might be some spectacular enterprise. But what did I find? It was this:
"In 1963, the annual conference of the Prison Officers' Association endorsed a resolution which rejected the 'turnkey' image of the prison officer and called for him to play a positive role in the rehabilitative aspects of a prisoner's treatment and training." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/12/70; col. 631.]
This is obviously important, but had we to wait until 1963 for that? Is this obviously desirable and sensible development only an experiment? I could scarcely believe my eyes. I am in no way belittling what is being done. All I am saying is that to an outsider it seems that excellent ideas often lack
604
thoroughness and thrust. One has the feeling that despite all the good ideas—and the many good ideas—there is nobody with sufficient authority, power and incisiveness to ensure their thorough, practical implementation, and I do not think it is always a naughty Treasury.
My Lords, I hope that I have shown some of the concerns that moved me to put this Motion on the Order Paper, and despite the length of this speech I have done no more in this complicated and intricate topic than to peg out the field for debate. I know that I shall be grateful to succeeding speakers who take these and many other problems further in that critical and responsible way which characterises the debates in your Lordships' House. I beg to move for Papers.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
3.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I now repeat a Statement that has been made by the Secretary of State for Employment in another place on the postal dispute. The Statement is as follows:
"When I reported to the House on Monday, the Post Office and the Union were meeting following the Post Office's suggestion that the two sides should meet to discuss the possibility of finding measures to improve efficiency which would enable the Post Office's offer to be increased without adding to costs.
"In these discussions, the Post Office tabled a proposal to increase their offer to 9 per cent. in return for a specific commitment by the Union to action to increase efficiency.
"The Union's executive met the same day to consider this improved offer and rejected it, their negotiators having tabled during the joint meeting a paper which specifically stated that the offer must be increased from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. without any conditions whatsoever.
"In their letter of rejection the Union proposed that the two sides should have private meetings under the chairmanship of an independent mediator.

605
"The Post Office came to see me yesterday, at their request, to report the position which had been reached. I also thought it right to invite the U.P.W. to see me, so that I could be fully informed of their position and in particular clarify with them the precise meaning of their proposal for a mediator. They explained to me that in their view the mediator would be empowered to attempt conciliation but would have no authority to put forward any recommended settlement in the event of the parties failing to agree. At the Union's request, I then conveyed to the Post Office the explanation which the Union had given me of their conception of the mediator's role.
"The Post Office representatives then left me in order to consider their decision with their colleagues and, as the House will know, they announced late last night that they were unable to accept the Union's proposal on the ground that they could not see how mediation of the type suggested could resolve the difference on amount and on the question of productivity. The Post Office reiterated their view that arbitration remained the right course for resolving the dispute, but the Union have since reaffirmed their refusal to consider arbitration.
"In the circumstances, I regret to have to inform the House that the deadlock continues."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for repeating the Statement which has been made in the other House. I find the whole of this Statement distressing. This is a distressing situation, and the concluding words of that Statement are even more distressing than the whole tone of the Statement itself. I have sufficient experience in this general field to know that for a Minister of Employment the timing of a decision purposefully to intervene in an industrial dispute is a matter of nice judgment and a careful assessment of the situation. To intervene too early is to find that the combatants have not really tested their relative strengths; to leave it too late is to find that the position has hardened into a state in which a solution becomes more difficult to find on each successive day.
606
I fear that the Post Office dispute has entered this latter phase, and that the solution is becoming daily more difficult to find, as the concluding words in the Statement that we have just heard indicate. The dispute has reached a stage at which both parties are anxious for a face-saver, but each not being prepared to find a face-saver for the other. We on this side have been in this sort of situation; we know something about it. In this situation surely it would be right for Mr. Carr to use the expertise that undoubtedly exists in his Department to produce a face-saving formula which would end a dispute which must, if longer continued, seriously damage the country's economy.
I appeal to the Minister, Lord Drumalbyn, to put this point very strongly to his right honourable friend. Those of us who know anything at all about that Ministry know something of the excellence of the officers within that Department. I am sure that if the Minister will intervene purposefully a face-saver will be found, and the country will be saved the further disaster that can spring from a continuation of this dispute.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. My colleagues and I are very disappointed with the breakdown of the talks. May I ask the noble Lord whether his right honourable friend envisages any further meetings, or is there a complete impasse? Perhaps he could enlighten us a little further on this word "deadlock". Sooner or later someone will have to make some step with a view to bringing about a settlement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how much I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I do not think it would be right for me to add in any way to what he has said, except to assure the House that I will convey to my right honourable friend what he has said. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asks whether any further meetings are in contemplation. I am informed that the Union's executive have been in session all morning, and up to the latest time that I heard were still in session. We shall have to wait for the end of that meeting, and the outcome of it, before I can give any indication as to the next step.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Champion in regard to this dispute and the stage it has now reached; and that, as I am given to understand, the Union are still at this moment meeting at their headquarters working out something, if at all possible, whereby a solution may be able to be found regarding this situation?
Secondly, is the Minister aware, and are noble Lords in this House aware, that due to this dispute the Post Office up to this moment have lost between £13 million and £14 million? Moreover, what is the position in regard to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in all these negotiations that have been taking place? The Government must be aware that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has a political responsibility for this Department and for the particular Board which has been set up with responsibility for this public service to the nation. It is high time that we heard about the action or the line of approach that this Minister, who is so responsible for the Board, is taking on this issue.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is of course true that the Post Office are losing a lot of money, and that in the meantime the public are losing services. The noble Lord asked what is the responsibility of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. He is faced with the withdrawal of labour in this case. He is not now in charge of the Department of the Post Office as the Postmaster General was before; he is in very much the same position as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be in the case of, say, a coal strike.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I regard the attitude of the Government in the Post Office strike as being like that of Pontius Pilate: they are washing their hands of any decision? Furthermore, is he not aware that I think the underlying reason is that the Government are prepared to fight the poorest Union in the country? Why do the Government not take on somebody their own size?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should deprecate it if we in this House were to enter into the lists on either
608
side. Much can be said on both sides. My right honourable friend's responsibilities at this juncture are the responsibilities of conciliation, when and where conciliation is possible.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the responsibilities of his right honourable friend are those of conciliation; and with that observation no noble Lord will disagree. But does the noble Lord not feel that it is high time that his right honourable friend took a rather more active part? Would he not agree that hitherto his right honourable friend (to use a rather inappropriate phrase in the context) has not been very much more than a postman between the two sides? Does not his right honourable friend, for example, think it appropriate to press on the Post Office the idea of a mediator, suggested by the Union but rejected by the Post Office; or, alternatively, some development of that idea, such as that of an independent chairman of standing and experience whose services have been found on occasions of difficult disputes such as this to be valuable in helping the parties to a conclusion?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me whether it is time that my right honourable friend took a more active part in the dispute. It is customary to leave the Minister himself to judge the right moment when he can act usefully; and my right honourable friend is ready to do so whenever this moment occurs. As to the idea of an independent chairman or something of that kind, the fact is that the Post Office have on two occasions advanced their original offer; and throughout they have been prepared to go to arbitration, in accordance with the agreement. This is still their position, and in view of what was said by the Court of Inquiry under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, it is difficult to fault it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord for the Statement to the House, for which we are grateful. May I ask him whether he is not aware that many of us, irrespective of where we stand politically, feel that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has completely effaced himself?

609
I remember distinctly that when another Government were in power many times Ministers in another place were asked to resign because of the lack of information they gave to the House or because of their lack of activity. Will the noble Lord pass on to the Cabinet, and others, the vital importance of the need in this case, because communication is the essence of civilisation? When is the right moment, we should like to know? If the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is having an out-and-out row with another Minister, the nation has no time to put up with that idiocy. If he cannot assert himself, he had better resign.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should make a suggestion of that kind. There is no ground for it whatever. Of course my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is keeping in the very closest touch with this issue. But it remains the fact that where there are disputes of this kind it is primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment to deal with them.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, would the noble Lord use his best influence on his right honourable friend in asking him to persuade the parties to accept some compromise on the procedure? Will he use his influence to persuade them to accept a conciliator who would conciliate and, if in the end he was unsuccessful in getting agreement, would have the authority to propose an award for consideration of each of the parties?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and will convey it to my right honourable friend. Of course, this is not a matter for me.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that if the postmen and those associated with the postal services are forced to return to work and accept defeat it will create a bitterness in the postal service that will remain for many years in this country, and serve no useful purpose? Surely, in the circumstances it would be wise for the Minister of Employment to intervene, at any rate by appointing someone to inquire into the circumstances of this dis
610
pute. If arbitration is unacceptable, surely, as in the case of the electricity dispute which led to the Wilberforce Inquiry, an inquiry is desirable in this case, and it may expedite reaching a settlement of some kind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's great experience, everyone will take note of what he has said. I will certainly also convey that to my right honourable friend. I would only comment that in a dispute of this kind there are no victors, and no one is defeated except the public.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and one Measure:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Teaching Council (Scotland) Act,

Guardianship of Minors Act,

Copyright (Amendment) Act,

Air Corporations Act,

Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Act,

Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Act,

Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act,

Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act,

Glasgow Corporation (Finance &c.) Order Confirmation Act,

Paisley Corporation (Cart Navigation) Order Confirmation Act,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Melton Mowbray and Sheffield) Act,

Amoco (U.K.) Act,

Falmouth Container Terminal Act, National Trust Act,

Nottingham Corporation Act,

Berkshire County Council Act,

Bristol Corporation (General Powers) Act,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act,

Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure.

LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I must begin by making two apologies. First, my noble friend Lady Serota, who was to have spoken at the beginning of this debate, because of urgent family business was not able to be here in time. She realised that a day or two ago, but she will be here later on to-day. Unfortunately I have to get to Yorkshire this evening. I expect to be here for some two hours or so more, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I have to leave before the end. However, my noble friend Lady Serota will be here to sit on the Front Bench if I have to leave before the debate ends.
I am sure we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the way in which he introduced his Motion this afternoon. It was a first-class speech which set a high standard on a difficult and intractable subject. In your Lordships' House there are a number of noble Lords who at various times have had responsibility for the administration of prisons. Of those taking part in this debate in particular, my noble friends Lord Stow Hill and Lord Stonham and I myself were all at the Home Office together, and we were grateful to my noble friend Lord Stonham for the debate which he initiated a few weeks ago. As the right reverend Prelate has said, the debate this afternoon is perhaps a narrower one, but it is complementary to the one which was so ably introduced a few weeks ago.
As I have said, there are several noble Lords who have had responsibility for the administration of prisons, and I think they would all agree that it is one of the most interesting but also one of the most difficult jobs in government. There are many reasons for these difficulties. I will mention only a few. It is impossible to know in advance the number of prisoners for whom to plan. After I left the Home Office I went to the Department of Education and Science, and although there are difficulties about the building of schools it is child's play compared with the planning of prisons. For instance,
612
I knew the birth rate in a particular year and I knew that five years on we should have to plan so many school places for the children entering primary schools. But with prisons, and particularly the local prisons, the governors do not even know how many they may have to-morrow; and they can never say, "We have no room", or, "You must wait your turn".
The second difficulty is that it takes a much longer time to build a prison than any other building. I know this is partly because the building itself is complicated, but often the main reason is that while everybody likes to live near a school or a hospital—provided it is not a mental hospital—few people like to contemplate living near a prison. So there are almost interminable delays while planning permission is obtained, with objections and inquiries and so on. Sometimes I felt very frustrated at the delays which can occur on that account. It is true that once a prison is built in a locality the outlook changes, but already the delay has occurred.
Also I believe the public is schizophrenic about prisons and prisoners. There is a great deal of criticism in the Press about conditions in some of our prisons, and quite rightly so, but there is also criticism about the building of new ones. I have often said that in this sphere you cannot win. I was at the Home Office when there were the spectacular escapes of some of the long-term prisoners, including Wilson, one of the train robbers. Immediately there was a great outcry for tighter security, an outcry which I suppose was understandable. So we transferred some of those who were considered to be potential escapers to the special wings at Durham and Leicester which had already been planned and put into operation by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. However, those were intended only as a temporary expedient. The relatives of the men in Durham and Leicester gave interviews to the Press and there was great public concern about conditions there. I visited the wing at Durham and quickly came to the conclusion that that wing was completely unsuitable for a long-term prisoner. The cells were good, as the right reverend Prelate has said; the recreation was fair the exercise area was much too small. But, worst of all,

613
there was just a handful of prisoners who saw only their fellow-prisoners and a few members of the staff who were on duty.
Having said that, I must also say that the accounts given by the relatives were exaggerated and gave the idea that the place was much worse than it actually was. Because of that criticism, we took the unprecedented step of allowing a Press reporter and a photographer from the Press Association to go inside the prison to take photographs and get interviews with the prisoners. Your Lordships may remember these photographs, which appeared in every paper throughout the country. There were photographs of train robbers and other long-term prisoners watching television, playing table tennis and sitting at a table, eating. And what happened? Again there was criticism: "Is this what happens to the taxpayers' money?" And we were accused of being too soft. As I have already said, my Lords, this is an area where you just cannot win. I am very pleased indeed that it has already been announced by the Government that the special wings at Durham, Chelmsford, Leicester and Parkhurst will go out of existence for the purpose for which they are now used, and that these long-term prisoners will no longer be held there. It was said that these security wings were escape-proof, but in the last year or so we have seen that this is not so. Prisoners actually got out, and one is still at large.
The debate we had in December ranged very wide, but to-day we are discussing a special and a narrower problem, but nevertheless a very important one. It is the problem of the men and women who will probably have to spend many years in prison. During our last debate mention was made of sentencing policy, and I agree that the sentencing policy ought to be reviewed. Then we had the parole scheme, which is proving extremely successful. But even if the sentencing policy is changed and even if the parole scheme is extended there will probably still be those who, for one reason or another, will have to spend a long time in prison. The abolition of the death penalty meant that those who would previously have been hanged are now serving a long sentence in prison. In the past, life sentences have been regarded as 9 to 12 years, with a few longer. But those are the ones who,
614
because of mitigating circumstances, have been reprieved. All recent Home Secretaries have said that the Prison Service must provide for those who will have to spend a very long time in prison. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate when he says that these prisoners are not all alike; some of them are more dangerous than others.
I voted against retaining the death penalty for the murder of prison officers, but that does not mean that I do not appreciate the problems of prison officers who have to work with some prisoners who feel that they have nothing to lose. The Motion to-day talks about the difficulties for the prisons and the prisoners, and I hope that we are going to have in mind, as I shah show later on, the difficulties of and the changes that we ought to make for the staff, as well as for the prisoners, because they have a very difficult job to do.
We have the advantage in our debate to-day of the Report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, The regime for Long-term Prisoners in Conditions of Maximum Security, and we are told by the Government that some of their recommendations have been accepted by the Home Office. This Report, I believe, is a first-class document except in one respect which I will mention in a few minutes, and it is a very realistic document. It devotes a great deal of space to security and the design of prisons. We need prison security for the safety of the public, but for other reasons also. A properly designed prison with effective perimeter security is the only way in which prisoners, particularly long-term prisoners, can lead lives like men and women and not like animals. I will here say that I had mixed felings about Earl Mountbatten's report. It was useful, it was valuable, it was based on security. But I believe that for a time at least it put the clock back with some of the worthwhile experiments that were going on inside our prisons.
Our problem to-day is to discuss how can we provide security plus a reasonable life for those who are in our prisons. Somebody says, "Well, the régime is all wrong"—and of course it is—and, "The buildings are all wrong". At one time it was contemplated that there would be built on the Isle of Wight

615
a new special security prison for those that are now called Category A prisoners. The Advisory Council disagreed with that and suggested that these prisoners should be dispersed rather than concentrated in one prison. I understand that the Home Office have accepted that view, and this dispersal is already taking place. To be fair to those who first put forward the idea of the prison on the Isle of Wight, I should say that they felt that a high security prison, with high security on the perimeter, would enable much more easy movement within the prisons with less regimentation. But the Report has convinced me that dispersal is the right policy, provided—and I hope we shall get some reply on this point from the Government—the conditions envisaged by the Advisory Council can be provided in the selected prisons. The conditions which the Advisory Council laid down have been possible in a new prison.
One of the points stressed by the Advisory Council is that the prisons to which the prisoners are to be dispersed should be in the country, but I understand that the prisons selected by the Home Office are Parkhurst, Wakefield, Wormwood Scrubs, Gartree and Hull, which I would not regard as being prisons in the country. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord who is to reply what is being done to provide the conditions for these long-term prisoners in the prisons to which they are to be dispersed.
Our old out-dated prisons rely on the security of the cell at night plus close supervision during the day. At night there is a skeleton staff and everybody is locked up. In the daytime the supervision is very strict; one can see just three or four prisoners marching around with a prison officer with them, with the locking and unlocking of doors which has to go on at every turn. I believe that the prison walls of most of our prisons are inadequate as a means of containing determined escapees. I sometimes looked at the wall of a prison and thought, "If I were in here for 10 years"—and, my Lords, I am not very agile—" I would have a jolly good try at getting over that wall". And recent years have shown how easy it is, with help, to get over a prison wall.
616
The design of our prisons and the régime impose a restriction on movement within the prison. It has led to chamber-pots and buckets and slopping out. For some years, when I was in Opposition in another place, I remember asking frequent Questions of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and then of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about when the remand centre at Risley was to be opened. It took years. I am not blaming anybody for that, but it did take years. And then it fell to my lot to open it, after I had been in the Home Office a very short time. It was a magnificent building. It had been planned for years; it had cost a great deal of money—I think in the region of £2 million. There was a great ceremony for the opening with everybody coming from the whole of Lancashire. The Press was there ready to take my photograph inside one of the new cells in this modern up-to-date remand centre. Just as the cameraman was about to take my photograph I froze in horror, for what did I see under the bed? Your Lordships can guess: it was a chamber-pot, in this new and up-to-date remand centre.
I believe that the best design for safety is that of the double perimeter, with control of the area between two fences. And here may I say how much I disagree with the Report of the Advisory Council when they recommend that the security officers who are on the towers of the security prisons should carry firearms. I know that the Council were split down the middle on this recommendation; about half were in favour and half against. I am against the use of firearms by security officers, for all the reasons given in the note of dissent by Dr. Peter Scott. I think it would trigger off a shooting match; it would show a bad example; it would be an utterly wrong policy for us to pursue. But there is another reason, too. As I have said, the security prisons are not in the country; they are in the middle of cities, in the middle of busy towns. I ask myself, if the officer is on the turret, where will he fire? Will he fire at the prisoner inside the walls? I do not think so. He is much more likely to fire if the man has already got outside the prison grounds, with consequent danger to members of the public.

617
Security is important, but it is important really because it determines the kind of life that the prisoner can lead inside the prison. I believe that the Advisory Council are quite right when they say what should be done for the prisoners inside the security prisons. What kind of life should the prisoners lead, once we have got the prison from which it is very difficult to escape? First of all, I agree with the Advisory Council that there should be many transfers; that these long-term prisoners should not spend too long in one prison. Also it is important—and the Advisory Council mention this—that inside the prison there should be a chance for some kind of choice in various aspects of the prisoner's life, whether it is choice of clothing, choice of food or choice of the classes to which he shall go. There are so many prisoners who leave prison and who cannot think for themselves, because they have been regimented and not had to think at all for many years. But what is most essential is useful work and some interest after work, particularly with education and recreation.
As the right reverend Prelate said, we were too apt to think of criminals as if they are all alike. Nothing is further from the truth. This is particularly so with the so-called Category A group prisoners. There are great differences even between men who have committed the same offence. I remember once visiting a prison where two train robbers were in adjacent cells. Their attitude to their imprisonment was entirely different. One moaned and complained; the other thanked me for what I had done and told me how he worked to pass the time—which, incidentally, included learning Spanish. I wondered afterwards what he had in mind in learning Spanish, but at any rate it gave him something with which to pass the time. I prefer to think of individuals rather than of groups.
When I think of the long-term prisoner, I think not only of the one who has been given a sentence of 10 or 15 years, but of the prisoners who have been in and out of prison for many years of their life. I have in mind one young man 25 years old who has just started a prison sentence of 8 years. He comes from a good working-class family of devout Christians. It is a big family, and all the other children are a credit to their
618
mother and father. At the age of 14 this boy was in an approved school. He was out for a few weeks and then he went into borstal. He was out for a few weeks and he received a 2-year sentence to a young prisoners' prison. He was out again for a few weeks, and he then received a 4-year sentence. He was out again for a few weeks, and he has now been sentenced to an 8-year term of imprisonment. With remisssion, he will be 31 when he comes out of prison, and he will have been more or less continuously in some kind of imprisonment. I know that an approved school is not a prison, but he will have been in an institution of some kind since he was 14.
What is the Prison Service going to do for this man while he is in prison, probably for six years if he gets his remission? First of all, I think he has to be made secure. I think he has to be in a security prison, because he is an escapee. The first escape was from an approved school on the Isle of Wight. He went to Leeds to see his mother who was in Leeds Infirmary. So he will try to escape. He has done so before. For his own sake, as well as that of the community, we must make it impossible for him to do so, because a prisoner on the run is somebody without a job to do, and he will get into trouble and come back to prison again for a longer time. The important thing is that he should be given training for a job when he comes out of prison, and that he should work a full week's work. Those are the two important things.
Noble Lords may think that in taking this man as an example I am taking an exception. I only wish I were. But those of us who have dealt with prison cases know that there are far too many who go from approved school to borstal, from borstal to prison, and then are in and out of prison for the rest of their lives. Therefore it is essential that this young man and those like him shall learn a trade and that they shall learn to do a full week's work. Secondly, it is essential that he shall have some interest in his leisure time. I know that good work is being done at the moment, particularly in Wakefield Prison, with education. I was pleased that some of the students of the Open University are prisoners in our prisons.

619
The right reverend Prelate said that we are supposed to train men and women to lead a good and useful life so that they may leave prison better than they went in. But our prison system has made a mockery of this. I remember one prisoner only, a woman, who told me that her aim was to leave prison better than when she went in. I think she was speaking educationally, and she was facing a very long period in prison. She told me, indeed, that she wanted to make so much use of the time in prison that she had not enough time inside to do all that she wanted to do. But this is exceptional.
Now I turn to visiting. I know that the right reverend Prelate mentioned this. It is most important that those who have near family and friends should receive regular visits. I think more investigation and work needs to be done about visits at the week-ends by wives, and certainly that this ought to take place in different buildings. These visits could not take place in our prisons as they are to-day. Ordinary prison visiting should take place in better conditions. One feature which worried me about building the security prison on the Isle of Wight was the difficulty caused to people visiting from the North of England. I come from the North of England, and I often think that I have suffered, both in another place and to some extent here, because I live 200 miles away and everything is geared to London.
The Advisory Committee recommend that more financial help should be available to enable relatives to visit those in prison. Well, that is all right, and I agree with it. But it is not only a question of finance; there is the difficulty of a woman from the North of England travelling to London, changing at main line stations in London and going out of London a considerable distance. That is all quite daunting for a woman who lives 200 or 300 miles away. I hope, therefore, that this point will be looked at when prisoners are being allocated to the prisons throughout the country.
The Advisory Committee did not say anything about women; they said that their Report was only about men. But I am pleased that in the reorganisation which is about to take place for women prisoners there is going to be a North and a South base. It is important that
620
women from the North are in the North and not always in London. On the whole, women are not escapees. I do not think they need the same maximum security. The average woman in prison wants to get out to go back to her home and her family, and that is the last place she can go to if she escapes from prison. Therefore, I think that one can have a different régime altogether. I have always thought, too, that there has never been any problem for work for women in prison. They do a full week's work and are always fully occupied.
I said at the beginning of my speech that we had to consider the staff as well as the prisoners, and that we have to protect the staff in the arduous job they are doing. The best way to do this is to lessen the tension inside the prison. Tensions build up between prisoner and prisoner and between prisoner and staff. Bad, cramped conditions are matters the effects of which are worked out on the staff. If the staff knew that the outer perimeter was secure, they would not need to be so conscious of security. I believe that this would lead to better relations between staff and prisoners.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate mentioned the public and prisons. Of course we do not have an open day in the way in which we have open days in schools. We can do so in some open prisons. But I believe that the community as a whole does not know what goes on in a prison. Even to people who live in streets right alongside a prison it is a mystery; they have not the slightest idea what the régime is like. If we could get some community interest in the prisons I think it would be all to the good.
I should like to make just one or two points in conclusion. First of all, I believe that our public discussion of prisons and prisoners has been bedevilled by extreme views in the past. On the one hand there is the "hang them; birch them; flog them" brigade, who would take away all human dignity and make prisons as degrading and punitive as possible. I absolutely reject this view, and I am sure that nearly all Members of your Lordships' House reject it. Secondly, there are some who are interested in prison work who are so idealistic that they never come down to earth. I am all for ideals. We cannot get very far in politics

621
and life without them. However, I believe that idealism, to be worth while, must be tinged with realism. We have had these two extremes.
Our prisons contain some evil men, some dangerous men, some foolish men and some weak men. But they are all individual human beings, and we have to remember that they have all to take their place in the outside world. In the past prisons have made transition into that outside world not better but worse. Our aim must be to fit a man, or woman, to live a good and useful life outside the prisons. As I have said, some of those we are discussing to-day are murderers who would have been hanged. Parliament decided that they should live. We decided they should live. We did not condemn them to a living death, and it is up to us to see that that is not what happens.
4.32 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to start by also thanking the right reverend Prelate for having initiated this debate. I was particularly glad, and I hope that it gratified him, that he found himself addressing such a full House. There can be no doubt whatever that all he had to say was listened to by the House with the very greatest possible attention, and on my own part, if I may say so, with some little emotion. I think I found myself in agreement with the right reverend Prelate upon practically every proposition that he put forward.
When I look at the list of speakers who are to follow me in this debate, and see the names of people who are so much better qualified to speak upon this subject than I am, I feel that I should not detain the House for more than a few minutes—indeed, I am going to confine myself to one suggestion as to how we might be able to mitigate the conditions in which these long-term prisoners are living. The right reverend Prelate said that in this field it was difficult to find a new idea. My idea may not be entirely novel, but I do not remember having heard it debated or discussed. My proposition is that so long as we retain the long-term fixed sentence, the determinate sentence, we shall be confronted with an insoluble problem. I think everybody will agree with the
622
right reverend Prelate that it is the taking away of a man's liberty by sending him to prison that is the punishment, and that it is not for the administration of the prison system to punish him when he is inside.
I think that everybody will agree also in this day and age that the longer a man is incarcerated the more desirable it is that there should be a liberal and unrestricted régime. What we get is the exact opposite. We get the exact opposite because the long-term prisoners, the people who go in under very long sentences, are the very people for whom the maximum security measures are required. That is for two reasons: one is that if a man goes into prison for 15 or 20 years it is almost certain that he has committed a very great offence indeed, and it is very likely that it was an offence concerned with violence. That makes him a high-risk Category A prisoner. Secondly, the very fact that he goes in for such a long term of imprisonment makes him a higher escape risk, because if a man has no hope, or cannot visualise coming out of prison for, say, 15 or 20 years, he is likely to feel that his only hope is to escape and get out. As a result, it is necessary, in the very nature of things, to apply to the long-term prisoners the most rigorous and restricted régime: which, of course, is the very thing one does not want to do.
I ask myself: is there any way in which we can escape from this vicious circle? I suggest that the solution might be found if we were to abandon the idea of the fixed, determinate sentence in the case of serious, grave crime, and reduce by one single day the period sentence. The fixed sentence has this grave disadvantage, as I have always thought, that when the sentence is pronounced by the judge the person is sent to prison for a certain period of time, subject only to the remission for good conduct and now, in addition, the possibility of being granted parole. Subject only to those two things, there is no way in which he can by his own efforts, or by trying to rehabilitate himself, reduce by one single day the period of his sentence. The hopelessness of the fixed sentence is that it gives a man no encouragement to try to make something of himself, in the hope and expectation

623
that he may be able to come out into the world and live some reasonable and useful life. I do not think the parole system really offers much help in the case of the long-term prisoners, because they are by definition the people who would be almost the last candidates for the use of the parole system.
Could we not change the present system of fixed sentences in these cases and introduce the indeterminate sentence? This is not a novel proposal, because every time we sentence a person to life imprisonment we are imposing an indeterminate sentence; we are leaving it to the Home Secretary to decide when, if ever, that person is regarded as fit to come out again into society. Supposing we did the same thing in the case of grave crime, and sentenced a person for an indeterminate term, leaving it to the prison authorities and the Home Secretary to decide when he should come out, what would be the advantage?
If you look at the figures, as I have endeavoured to do, you find that at the end of December, 1968, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, there were just short of 600 people in prison under life sentences. I believe (and I should like the Minister to correct me if I am wrong about this) that only a very small proportion of the people who are now in prison under a life sentence are Category A prisoners; that is to say, escapists of the first order. I believe it is also true to say that if you look into the people in Category A, the biggest risks, you find that the majority are the people who have been sentenced to a long fixed term of imprisonment.
My Lords, may there not be some lesson to be learned from this? I suggest the lesson is that if a man goes in for "life", as it is called, he then has hope that if he behaves himself, and tries to rehabilitate himself, his case will be considered and he may come out. The reason why so few people sentenced to life imprisonment find themselves in Category A, and under the special security requirements, is I think, that those people have hope. That suggestion indicates a practical contribution which might be made to solving this problem in the sentencing policies of the courts. I may be very ignorant about this, and I do not know whether this suggestion
624
has been considered before, but no doubt the Minister will be able to let me know about that.
In conclusion, I think there is an objection in principle to the imposition of the fixed sentence where long terms of imprisonment are involved. That is that it is quite impossible for any judge, however wise, to decide what a man before him in the dock and under sentence will be like in 10 or 15 years' time. By then he may be an entirely different individual. If my suggestion of introducing the indeterminate sentence for all crimes carrying a penalty above, say, eight years' imprisonment were adopted, so that if the judge thought that an eight years' sentence was insufficient he would then pass the indeterminate sentence, we should have made an improvement in our legal system of sentencing and a contribution to the solution of one of the problems which the right reverend Prelate has raised.
4.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, a few weeks ago we had a full debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which was concerned with the problems raised by the increasing size of the prison population. To-day, the right reverend Prelate has provided an opportunity to consider in more detail part of that population—the prisoners serving long-term sentences. Perhaps I should start by saying that the description "long-term" does not have any recognised definition in the context of our present debate. We might begin by reflecting that one year of a man's life is a long time in any circumstances, and in prison it must seem longer than almost anywhere else. For certain purposes a recidivist prisoner serving a sentence of five years or more is classified as a long-term prisoner, and the same description is applied to a "star" prisoner; that is, one with little or no previous prison experience who is serving four years or more. Similarly, when the Advisory Council on the Penal System considered the question of long-term prisoners in conditions of maximum security it concerned itself with prisoners serving sentences of more than four years. Some of what I have to say will apply generally to such prisoners, but in view of the right reverend Prelate's concern with prisoners serving life imprisonment or very long

625
fixed terms, some of them in conditions of maximum security, I shall try to concentrate on aspects which relate particularly to these prisoners and their treatment.
It might be helpful if I were to give some indication of the numbers involved, and update the statistics available to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the right reverend Prelate. On December 31, 1970, the total number of male persons aged 17 or over serving sentences of imprisonment was approximately 26,000. Of these, almost exactly 3,000 were serving sentences of over four years and up to and including 10 years. Another 237 were serving fixed sentences of over 10 years; and there were 753 men serving life sentences, including sentences of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. There is a tendency to believe, perhaps as a result of a few notorious cases, that the courts are now making much greater use of very long fixed terms of imprisonment than they were a few years ago. This is not borne out by the figures. In 1969, the number of men received into prison with fixed sentences of over 10 years was 28. The corresponding figure in 1961 was 20. As a percentage of the number of male offenders sentenced by the higher courts, the number has actually declined, from 2·3 per cent. to 1·8 per cent. In general, the picture is that the proportion of the prison population which is accounted for by very long fixed terms has remained remarkably constant over the last decade. Because of the abolition of capital punishment and other factors, the position regarding prisoners serving life sentences is rather different and I shall return to this later.
The purpose of this debate, as I see it, is to consider the conditions of detention of long-term prisoners, and perhaps I may offer one or two reflections about the role of the Prison Service. The first aim of a penal system is to protect the public. Men are not lightly sent to prison for long periods. Among the long-term prisoners are many who have demonstrated by their record of antisocial or violent behaviour that they are a danger to other people. Prisons are still built with "stones of law". Nothing would do more to undermine public confidence in the penal system, and impede a liberal approach to prison treatment, than a belief that the Prison Service was
626
failing in its primary purpose of keeping prisoners in safe custody. It has become rather fashionable to criticise the emphasis on improving prison security following the inquiry by the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma. But the escapes which led to his inquiry and Report in 1966, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, has referred, were a sharp reminder that if it appears that the negative aspect of prison security and the positive aspect of treatment and training are out of balance, then public confidence is at risk. There is another way, too, in which this balance is a precondition of a forward-looking penal policy, and it is one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, has also drawn attention. Good staff/prisoner relationships will inevitably be made harder to achieve if prison staff are constantly looking over their shoulders, doubting the adequacy of their physical defences.
Maintaining this balance, between security on the one hand and treatment on the other, is one of the crucial tasks of any prison system. We cannot in a civilised society be content to shut away people who have offended and forget all about them. Even the utilitarian, untroubled by any moral obligation or promptings of conscience, would have to recognise that, come what may, the prisoner serving a fixed sentence will at some time have to be released. He would have to ask how best that man can be equipped, in the future interests of the community as well as of the prisoner himself, to return to life outside the prison walls. Our approach, therefore, is to try to match the conditions of the long-term prisoner to the degree of security that he is assessed to need, and to his prospects of release.
The concept of parole, introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, has brought a valuable feature into the penal system in that every sentence is now in a sense indeterminate. Every prisoner has the opportunity to show his fitness for early release. The phasing of the prisoner's treatment, and the assessments that are made of his progress, call for a close relationship between the Prison Department of the Home Office and the Parole Board. I think that most people who have a close interest in this subject believe that the way parole is evolving is one of the most encouraging features

627
of penal policy in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who will be speaking later in the debate, must be weary of compliments by now, but I believe that his own contribution, and that of his colleagues, is one that will become increasingly recognised as time goes by.
I want to stress this general approach to the treatment of long-term prisoners, my Lords, and the conditions in which they are held, because there is sometimes a tendency to equate the long-term prisoner with the prisoner held in conditions of highest security, the Category A prisoner. Perhaps I ought to take this opportunity to remind your Lordships that there are four security categories of prisoners which were introduced in 1967, as recommended by Lord Mountbatten. Category A consists of prisoners whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or to the police or to the security of the State. In Category B are those who do not need the very highest conditions of security, but for whom escape must be made very difficult. Category C are prisoners who cannot be trusted in open prisons, but who do not have the ability or resources to make a determined escape attempt; while Category D consists of prisoners who are fit for open conditions.
It is important to appreciate that prisoners serving very long sentences can be, and are, in any of these categories. It might possibly be inferred from what the right reverend Prelate said that they were all in Categories A or B. It is quite true that the majority are in those two categories, but the four categories apply irrespective of the length of the sentence. Leyhill open prison, in Gloucestershire, for example, is not subject to formal restrictions as to the category of prisoner sent there. There are at present rather more than 50 carefully selected prisoners serving life sentences in Category D.
At the other end of the spectrum from prisoners of the type I have just described, who can be trusted in open conditions, there are those in Category A. The latest statistics are these. On January 31, 1971, there were 222 sentenced prisoners in this category. Nineteen of these were provisionally in the category pending assessment by the allocation centres to which long-term prisoners are
628
sent after conviction and sentence. The remaining 203 had been through the allocation procedure and sent to appropriate prisons. Only 12 of these prisoners, in Category A, were serving sentences of less than 10 years; 66 were serving 10 to 15 years; 14 were serving from 16 to 20 years; 10 were serving over 20 years; and 101 were serving life sentences. My Lords, 101 in Category A, out of a total life sentence population of nearly 800! Classified according to the offences committed, out of the total of 203 in Category A 83 had been convicted of murder or attempted murder; 12 of manslaughter; 79 of various violent offences, including robbery with violence; and two of offences under the Official Secrets Acts.
My Lords, I should like to explain, because this is a matter of considerable importance, how the placing of a long-term prisoner in Category A is decided. The first step, as I have just mentioned, is for the prisoner to be sent after sentence to what is described as a long-term allocation centre. There, a detailed analysis is made from all the available information of his offence, character and attitudes, and also of the security and control problems that he is likely to present to the Prison Service. If his sentence or offence raise the question whether he should be placed in the highest security category, Category A, his case is referred, with recommendations as to his category and allocation, to the Prison Department at the Home Office, where it receives further detailed consideration. If the Department concludes that the prisoner would, on escape, be such a danger that he should be in the highest category, then a recommendation is submitted for decision at Ministerial level. I might say at this point that Ministers take a close and continuing interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will know from his own experience, in this policy and its practical application, particularly where prisoners in the highest security category are concerned. The status and allocation of a Category A prisoner is reviewed at least once a year, and in many cases more frequently, and he will be downgraded out of Category A as soon as this is considered safe. In 1970, for example, 28 prisoners were downgraded from Category A to Category B.

629
The objective of this procedure recommended by the Mountbatten Report for categorising a prisoner as A is to identify to the staff the prisoner whose safe custody is of paramount importance. It follows that the category, if it is not to be devalued, is, and ought to be, used very selectively indeed. It does not follow, however, that the price of vigilance is, or ought to be, the repression of the prisoner. There have been various suggestions as to how these Category A prisoners should be treated. One proposal was that they should all be kept together in a single, specially constructed prison with maximum security—a fortress solution. This proposal has not been accepted, and the present policy, which is based on a study by the Advisory Council on the Penal System, is to disperse them among prisons with high perimeter security within which they can take their place, among Category B prisoners, in a normal prison community. So to this end a number of so-called "dispersal" prisons have been designated and have been given strengthened security.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He would agree, I suppose, that one factor in deciding whether a prisoner should be placed in Category A and maintained in Category A is the kind of reputation that that prisoner has borne in the minds of the public?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the factors that are taken into account by those concerned with the categorising of prisoners include the degree of notoriety, the type of offence committed, the likelihood that the prisoner may offend again, the likelihood that the prisoner may escape—all these factors are taken into account at the different stages. As I have said, it is very important to appreciate that there is a constant review of the prisoner's categorisation—at least once a year and sometimes more frequently. Because the various factors change in weight over time, the review procedure is extremely important. Somebody is not put into Category A because there is a sudden public outcry and then left there for all time; the case is reviewed regularly.
My Lords, let me go on to describe the dispersal prisons which have been
630
referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. The aim is to restrict the Category A element in their populations to not more than about 10 per cent. of the total. Two of these prisons, Wakefield and Wormwood Scrubs, between them contain over one-third of the allocated Category A prisoners. The other dispersal prisons are Parkhurst, Hull, Gartree and Albany, the last of these having come into use for the purpose only a few months ago. The new prison at Long Lartin, already in use for Category C prisoners, will be added to the list when it is completed next year.
It is therefore only a minority—40 out of the 203 sentenced and allocated Category A prisoners—who are contained in the maximum security wings at Chelmsford, Durham, Leicester and Parkhurst. These wings have special security precautions against the possibility of escape and were established when perimeter security in the prison system was not as high as it is now. Their present population of 40 compares with 62 four years ago. In that time conditions in the wings have been substantially improved, but the policy is to disperse their inmates to the prisons I have mentioned as and when we are confident that they will be assimilated elsewhere. This process cannot and will not be done precipitately—we must remember that the special wings contain prisoners whose absorption in a normal prison community will present serious problems—but the Government have decided that the time has come to make a start. We shall, therefore, in the near future close the special wing at Durham prison. This will have the effect of reducing the number of prisoners detained in the remaining three special wings to about 25 in all.
Let me now turn to prisoners serving life sentences. At present there are about 770 in all. Statistically this is a small proportion—approximately 2 per cent.—of the total prison population, but, of course, it raises problems of containment and treatment out of all proportion to its size. Moreover, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the number of prisoners serving terms of life imprisonment has been increasing. At the end of 1955, there were 89, less than one-eighth of the present figure. By the end of 1964 it had reached 365. In the six years since then it has more than doubled.

631
What has caused this increase? There is no straightforward answer, although it is likely that we are seeing in part the general effect of the increase in crime, and in part the cumulative effects of the two stages in the abolition of the death penalty in 1957 and 1965. A further factor is the use by the courts of the life sentence not only for murder—for which it is a mandatory penalty—but also for certain offences, including offences other than homicide, for which it is discretionary. The court will often make it clear in imposing such a sentence that it finds it impossible to foresee how soon the offender will be safe to return to the community and prefers to leave this decision to the Home Secretary on the recommendation of the Parole Board. I think these comments bear very much upon what Lord Foot said in his speech. At the end of last year there were 89 prisoners serving life for manslaughter; 25 for rape; 21 for arson; and 51 for other offences of a violent or sexual nature.
Let me say a word or two next about the release of life sentence prisoners. No such prisoner is released unless the Home Secretary, on the recommendation of the Parole Board, and after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he is available, thinks it safe to release him. Even then the prisoner is subject to a licence which makes him liable to recall to prison at any time in the future. Noble Lords will appreciate that, with the abolition of capital punishment, the number of life sentence prisoners who cannot, even after many years, be safely released is likely to grow. Already there are 71 who have served more than 9 years, including 17 who have served more than 13 years. More than half the life sentence population have, as yet, served less than four years so that it is hard to predict how large this category of men who have to be detained for exceptionally long terms will be in the future.
The problem of detaining these men humanely is a grave one, including, as they do, prisoners whose psychopathic qualities make them a danger in prison as well as out, and others whose offences make them a target of strong hostility from fellow prisoners. As with the Category A prisoners, men serving life
632
imprisonment are not all concentrated together in one place, but are dispersed amongst a number of prisons. Some, as I have said earlier, are in open conditions, others are in prisons with a high degree of security. The great majority of lifers are held in these dispersal prisons, particularly Wakefield and Wormwood Scrubs, which together hold a little over half of the total. These are prisons catering mainly for the criminally unsophisticated among the life sentence population, and the high proportion of it which they contain reflects the preponderance of "domestic" and situational homicides. It follows that the staff of these prisons, including their doctors and visiting psychotherapists, have an exceptionally deep experience and understanding of the problems of the life sentence prisoner. But, according to their needs, such prisoners are contained too in a variety of other closed prisons including some, like Maidstone and Bristol, with lower security than the dispersal prisons require. Nineteen prisoners serving life sentences are at Grendon Underwood, an institution regarded by many as the brightest jewel in the prison system.
I should like to emphasise that the location and progress of every life sentence prisoner is kept under constant review, both within the prison where he is serving, and at the Home Office. At the early stage of his sentence he is likely to spend some time in a local prison, probably the prison where he was for pre-trial diagnosis and reports. This is a time when he learns to adjust to the shock of his trial and sentence, and the staff have the opportunity to form a picture of him that will guide his subsequent treatment. The local prison is likely to be reasonably near his home, so that if he has relatives and friends to support him, there is the advantage that they can visit him without difficulty. During this early stage the prisoner will normally go to a long-term allocation centre, and reports and recommendations from the centre will be taken into account in deciding both his security category and the prison to which he is allocated. Again, the desirability of keeping him as near as possible to relatives and friends is kept in mind but it has to be weighed, not only against the availability of a prison of a necessary degree of security, but against any special medical or other requirements influencing the prisoner's

633
location. Thereafter, the regular reviews may point to the need for a new location or, for example, for the exploitation of some medical aspect of the case. If they do, the prisoners can be transferred and in practice a prisoner serving a very long sentence may very well be contained in more than one prison after the initial allocation has been made.
I have so far spoken mainly of those long-term prisoners who are serving life sentences or who fall into security Category A. But before I end, I should like to broaden my remarks a little and touch on what is meant when we talk about the "training and treatment" of long-term prisoners. There is a wide range of training in all the prisons I have referred to; not just in the formal sense of learning crafts or technical skills in the workshop, or the educational opportunities provided by tutor-organisers, but in the more simple—and perhaps the more important—things to people who have gone astray; like getting on terms with other people in the same community, even if it is a prison community. But we shall expect too much of the Prison Service unless we recognise the limitations imposed by the custodial setting and by present knowledge about behaviour and personality.
We must remember, too, that for a multiplicity of reasons many prisoners are going to serve a very long period of years in prison. For these it is essential to do everything possible to sustain their personality until release. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke of the problem of deterioration, and this must be one of the central concerns of those responsible for the prison system. The prisoner has to be helped to develop capacities which will assist his eventual reintegration into the community. Part of the task here is to assist the prisoner to make the re-evaluation of himself which must underlie any hope of rehabilitation, and also to ensure that this process of self-knowledge is not discouraged once it has begun.
Ways of achieving this must be steadily developed in the prisons along the lines recommended in the Advisory Council Report, The Régime for Long-Term Prisoners in Conditions of Maximum Security. Prison staff are encouraged to regard the whole institutional community,
634
and the day-to-day events within it, as contributing to treatment. In this way prisoners are helped to learn from relationships with each other and with the staff; so that even a negative or an unfavourable response to a prisoner's request can be seen and used as a learning and treatment opportunity. Important contributions are made to this process of socialisation by people from the world outside: by prison visitors, chaplains, voluntary associates of the probation service, instructors at evening classes, and by all the men and women who from time to time come into the prison to share the prisoners' activities. Means are also being sought of teaching prisoners social responsibility by enabling them to share in the running of the social life of the prison community; and, within the limitations of the prison régime and security, a constant effort is made to foster the prisoner's ability to make responsible decisions by widening the area of choice available to him in his daily life.
My Lords, none of these tasks is made any easier by overcrowding, by obsolescent buildings and by shortages of staff. These are the practical problems of resources, which were discussed so fully on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. But this afternoon, with the focus on the treatment of people spending long periods inside the prisons, and speaking for the Government, I have tried to explain our attitude, our policies and our reasons for them.
5.14 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with every noble Lord who has so far spoken in expressing my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for introducing this debate; and also I would express my thanks and congratulations for the manner of his speech, for the great deal of thought and research that has gone into it and for the questions which he addressed to the Minister, to which, I hope, he will in due course receive an answer. I do not think there is any doubt at all—or there should not be—in the mind of anyone, after hearing the debate so far and the facts that have been put forward, that long sentences have introduced a new element into penology. We now have the "death sentence" for non-capital crimes; because, my

635
Lords, it is a death sentence for a man to be immured for over 20 years in the kind of conditions which obtain in the special wings. He loses himself as a man, he loses his whole individuality, he loses his ability to think for himself, let alone act for himself, and he becomes a zombie. It is impossible to rehabilitate such a person.
I make no quarrel about the fact that the special security wings were set up and were populated. It was done under conditions of near hysteria and great public pressure. It was unthinkable that these men should be allowed to escape; and the responsibility placed on successive Home Secretaries and accepted by them was, "It is our business to see that they do not escape." So the special wings were brought into operation and men practically elected themselves to them. They picked themselves—or the newspapers did. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made clear that we must not confuse the security units with Category A, which is the top security category for very bad men in prison. I have no complaint whatever about the allocation procedures. Allocations are made by men of great experience, and humanely. Above all, the Home Secretary has to decide on every one; both that the criminal should, or should not, be in Category A, and also the prison to which he is to be sent.
Anyone who sees the daily sets of papers, as I did for a good time, can see that no man who is put into Category A has not earned the right to be there—if "earned" is the proper word to use. Nor, indeed, can I ever remember seeing such a case where it seemed to me that the current sentence was too severe. In saying that we have introduced this new element of the "death sentence" for non-capital crimes I do not mean it as a criticism of the courts. All the men have been sentenced according to laws passed by Parliament, and it is for Parliament itself to alter the laws and guard against any danger.
I think it should be laid down that no sentence for a non-capital crime should be more severe in its practical effect than that imposed on a murderer. So, my Lords, a considerable part of the case put forward by the right reverend Prelate is being attended to. The special units are
636
being closed down. They should have been closed some time ago. There are some 400 Category A men whose crimes are absolutely horrible; they are far worse than the crimes of the men in the special units. Reading about them the only conclusion one can come to is: "I do not grumble about the category that that man is in. I only wonder that he has not gone to a special institution"—because it does not seem that men can do these crimes and still be sane. Of those 400 there are 40 men at present in security; the other 360 are either secure or semi-secure prisoners. That is, of course, where the special unit men will go; but this risk has been accepted all the time. These men are a danger to the public, who are extremely concerned if they escape. In Hull, Chelmsford, Garston and other prisons they are walking about just like any other man in prison. I do not complain about that. What I complain about is that these special security wings should be still in operation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will mention the feeling about this matter to the Home Secretary, because it is bad for the prison staffs.
I believe that almost any prison officer in almost any prison has a rotten job; but the prison officers looking after the special units have an intolerable job. They are constantly in some physical danger—though that is, I hope, a lot less now than it was—and they are constantly having to engage in at least wordy warfare, with extra and acute responsibilities. If they fail they are under the whole glare of Press publicity, and there is bound to be a severe inquiry in the prison: they are on a kick in the teeth to nothing. That is quite unnecessary. I suggest that the noble Lord might take 50 or 100 of the last Category A allocation papers and read them, and then see whether he is not satisfied that they are far worse than the records of most of the men in the security units. There is no need for that.
I am thinking, too, of prison governors. The views of prison governors could be asked for. I do not think they are asked when these Category A men are continually sent to them. They have to take them and they do take them, and look after them as they would look after the others. So far as the prisons are concerned it is bad for them, owing to the cramped

637
nature of the accommodation and the fact that the men are there for 20 years. Of course, the prison governors and the Home Office have done, and are constantly doing, all they can to ameliorate the lot of these men. That is why they get these co-called privileges, such as looking at television occasionally, and things like that. It does not make them any less on the road to being zombies.
So far as visitors are concerned, I support everything that the right reverend Prelate said. But this applies to all prisoners. The accommodation for prisoners in virtually every prison is very bad indeed. As my noble friend Lady Bacon mentioned, it is only about three months ago that I induced the Home Secretary to agree to the erection of a building in Leeds prison with money provided by the W.R.V.S. That will give the noble Lord some idea of the lengths that we have to go to in order to provide this facility. It is just a building in the grounds of the prison where the visitors can go and keep out of the weather while they are waiting. We even have to depend on voluntary efforts to secure such modest improvements.
I do not think there is any doubt that the prisoners would be much better off and feel better off, and certainly much happier, if they were moving about in the ordinary way. I know we are all agreed that the idea is to have a secure perimeter and freedom within it. But when is that idea going to be implemented? Or, rather, when we have a new prison built with a secure perimeter, when is the régime going to be altered? I have in mind, for example, the new prison at Coldingley, near Byfleet. The right reverend Prelate asked why we could not have a committee to discuss new prisons before they are built. Coldingley was like that. Not merely was there in that case an experienced and knowledgeable committee, but every section was represented. The committee not only met before the prison was built, but kept on meeting until it was finished and Ministers saw the men in it; and the committee were able to keep in touch.
That, my Lords, is a secure prison. I think that the discipline staff—the guards if you like to use that term—should be altered accordingly, and we should be getting towards the ideal that we all have in mind. The chief trouble is that we
638
have debates, and someone puts forward an idea; it is considered in the Home Office; it is decided that it is right and that they will try it. Then there is an interregnum and what has been decided either does not get done or is only very slowly carried out: certainly it does not become universal. That is one of the things that I should like to see done.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned the word "hope". This is the great thing within prison: the prisoner must have hope. But by these long-term sentences men are practically deprived of it. The one great hope of all of them is parole. All the train robbers are technically eligible for parole. This means that when they have served 10 of their 30 years their case will have to be considered by the local review committee, and if that committee makes a favourable recommendation the case will go to the Parole Board. I believe that the better conduct in wings has been because the men hope for parole and are guiding their lives accordingly.
Have they any real hope, my Lords? The Parole Board should consider their cases, if they come before them, exactly as they have considered every other case. One of the things they must consider is the effect on public opinion: the safety of the public. I can only hope that they will have regard to the fact that although these men are all serving 30 years, they are not all equally culpable. I said that all of them are serving 30 years, but in fact two are serving less: one is serving 15 years, and one 18 years. And, to boot, they have had time to spend all their money. I do not know whether that was a consideration which prompted the court, but it is an extraordinary fact which indicates that the men are not all equally culpable.
My noble friend Lady Bacon mentioned the two men she saw, train robbers who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, and referred to the difference in their attitudes to prison life. If the report on a prisoner is good—if he has tried, has been a good prisoner and worked well—and if the prognosis as to his future is good, then I hope that, irrespective of his notoriety (which is not of his creation) the case will be considered on its merits, or demerits, and dealt with as any other. I hope that the Home

639
Secretary will not flinch from what I regard as his duty when the prisoner goes before him. The first case or two will be taken as a guide, and if the men are not paroled—I do not say that they should be—then hope will die. That is the very worst aspect about this.
My Lords, I have said that Parliament should set a practical limit to determine sentences, and I hope that this suggestion will be considered. It is no good expressing pious hopes; we have to do this by rule, otherwise we cannot blame the courts. But we should not be pushed away from the proper course by hysteria engendered in the Press; we must deal with this problem on its merits, and give our own humane feelings a chance.
5.34 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate, and for encouraging me to take a small part in it. I should like also to thank the Government Chief Whip for making it possible for me to speak at a fairly early stage in the debate, and to couple that with an apology, for the reason why I asked that that should be done is simply that I had already long since undertaken to fulfil two previous engagements from which I cannot be excused. I shall be very sorry to miss the subsequent speeches and the winding up, for which I apologise to your Lordships.
Because so much has been said by other noble Lords, and so much more will be said before the debate is over, on topics about which I could have perhaps said something, I propose to limit my remarks to the problems of long-term prisoners who are serving fixed sentences. There are two aspects which have caused us concern as members of the Parole Board in considering the merits, or otherwise, for parole. I hope that this will not embarrass the Minister; I have given him advance notice of these two points, and in one way or another we have covered them in our annual report. To the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who has just entered the Chamber, may I say how interested I was in his observations in relation to parole, and to the suggestion that all sentences beyond a certain length might be indeterminate. The point that I was going to make has been
640
made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in drawing attention to the indeterminate element in fixed sentences that is introduced by the advent of parole.
My first point is that only in relatively few cases have the Board been able to recommend for parole at their first review, men serving long sentences, that is, at one-third of their sentence. The main and obvious reason for this has been our concern for the public, and the risk which we consider that many of these offenders would represent to the public if they were released at so early a date as at the first third of their sentences. Other considerations have also been brought to bear in certain cases. It is of interest to mention statistics. About three-quarters of the 40 per cent. of the long-term prisoners who have been granted some parole in the course of the middle third of their sentences have had to wait until they have served at least half the sentence before they were released on licence. The point I am trying to make is that the Statute requires that the case of each man must be reviewed not only at one-third of the sentence, but subsequently at regular intervals of one year thereafter. Our concern is about those many men who have to wait for a second review, some a third and a few a fourth review before they are eventually granted parole. I think the Minister pointed this out. If he did not, would your Lordships please take it from me that that is so. This applies to only 40 per cent. of the total who are termed "long-term prisoners".
The remaining 60 per cent. of the long-term men who do not get parole at all are also reviewed at annual intervals. Whenever we speak to long-term prisoners during our visits to prisons—and we have visited all the prisons in England and Wales, some of them more than once—it is borne upon us how stressful is this annual cycle of hope and anxious expectancy, prolonged over three or four months, between the interview of the man by the local review committee, and the eventual decision imparted to him by the Home Office. This is followed, as a rule, by the inevitable disappointment, the loss of confidence in himself, and perhaps in the system and the establishment at large, and the bitterness when that refusal is given. This state of tension and disappointment is not confined to the

641
prisoner; it is inevitably imparted to his dependants, his relatives, and this can create serious problems in the domestic situation, both at the time of refusal and at the time of eventual resettlement.
My colleagues and I are convinced that some further thought has to be given to this problem—possibly in the form of amending legislation. It may be that the statutory requirement of an annual review for all prisoners eligible for parole should be replaced by some discretion given to the Parole Board to order a review at appropriate intervals, after the first review has taken place, depending on the circumstances. In this respect it would be similar to the way in which "lifers" are considered. This would be the same for everybody, it would be fair to everybody, and would enable the majority of longer term prisoners who are unlikely, as shown by the statistics, to get parole at one-third of their sentence, to get on with their sentence without disturbance, without disappointment, and there may well be other alternatives by which this serious hardship and snag may be overcome.
My second point is concerned with a later situation—the situation which follows release from prison. In general it must be true that the longer the sentence the greater the need for supervision and support when the offender returns to the community. At present, this need is met for about 40 per cent., as I have explained to your Lordships, by the release on parole licence at some stage before the end of the two-thirds of the sentence is reached and a man would inevitably leave prison at that moment. But what about the remaining 60 per cent. who do not get parole at all? These are going to be released without any supervision or, unless they specifically ask for it, without after-care and support. The only exceptions to these are the men and women on whom extended sentences have been passed and who have, by Statute, to be subject to supervision for the total span of the sentence imposed by the court. I have not mentioned young prisoners because, although the same rule applies for them, there are very few young prisoners, as one might expect, who have to serve very long sentences.
However, these long sentence men are the very men who stand in most need of supervision—and I stress the word
642
"supervision"—as well as support. I know that for a number of them there is the pre-release employment scheme, in which they can take part from a hostel or from some other situation. That aspect of rehabilitation is not the one I am drawing attention to. The real point I am trying to make is that it is the need for supervision which is not provided under the hostel scheme. I have the greatest regard and respect for the splendid work of the voluntary after-care agencies, but I think they would admit this. Certainly I myself do not think that they can meet the need of many of these men, who require a firm hand in the form of compulsory supervision, with eventual sanctions, as well as after-care. I would say that this is both in their interest and in that of the community.
The question of the third one-third, the final third, of the fixed-term sentence is a very well-known and long-standing problem. Traditionally it has been reserved for the purposes of discipline in the prison and to give some incentive to the man to behave and earn the full remission, as well as, of course, a proper brake on unreasonable and hopeless pursuit of appeals to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Yet it is my view that at least some part of this final third of the sentence should be available for conditional release under supervision. This problem might be solved by widening the scope of the supervisory aspect of the extended sentence to include all sentences beyond a certain length. Whatever might be decided in that direction, an amendment along those lines would undoubtedly go a long way to remove the dilemma which is faced by the Parole Board time and again when we consider the parole of men who may well remain, in our view, a continuing risk to the public when we know that they are going to be released without any restraint at all in a matter of months.
My final point, my Lords, is about an entirely different matter which I admit has been aired this afternoon and with, rightly I think, some strong feeling. I am going to turn to it myself only briefly and for a particular reason. I refer to the matter of the special security wings. I do so knowing what has already been said. During our visits to prisons up and down the country, my colleagues and I have always taken the opportunity to pay

643
a visit to the special security wings within the prisons which hold them—in Durham, Leicester, Chelmsford and Parkhurst. I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand my sentiments when I say that my colleagues and I have nearly always emerged from these visits considerably shaken and disturbed. I hope I may claim that we have no illusions about the nature of the people who are placed in these special conditions; nor of the crimes they have committed; nor of the very considerable risk which they would probably present to the public if they were to escape. We naturally accept that some of them will have to remain under conditions of maximum security for a considerable time to come. When I say that we have been extremely troubled by our meeting of the people inside and by what we saw and heard there, I am referring not only to our concern about the inmates, their morale and tension and the conditions, but to our concern for the prison staff as well.
I was going to make a suggestion on the premise that it was the policy of the Government to maintain these wings for a considerable time to come. After what we have heard from the Minister, and after the strong pressure put by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to hasten the speed of changes in this field, I am hopeful that it will not be long before these changes are made. As it is, I presume to make these remarks in order to stress how thankful I am that the policy is going to change. I should like to conclude by telling your Lordships, from the rather special, privileged view of an independent outsider into the situation in prisons, what an absolutely splendid job in human terms the governors and the staffs are doing for the prisoners as well as in terms of security for the public.
5.46 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, we have listened this afternoon to very valuable and well informed speeches from a number of Members of your Lordships' House. We must all be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing the subject in the very moving speech to which we listened. I would begin my speech, which will be brief, by taking up the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made just before he sat down after his extraordinarily interesting and valuable
644
speech. We are blessed in this country with a first-class prison administration. He referred to the governors. What he said is equally applicable to all prison officers, welfare officers; to the after-care service, and everybody else in the Service, including those voluntary workers who go to make up, in a broad sense, our prison administration. I would include the staff at Broadmoor.
If I venture to intervene in this debate it is with some hesitation, because I am so out of touch with modern developments, which have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and other speakers. But I did have in 1965, when the death penalty was abolished, responsibility in these matters which I was very fortunate to be able to share with my noble friends Lady Bacon (as she now is), Lord Stonham and Mr. George Thomas, in the other place. I speak from personal experience when I say of our Prison Administration that it is a Service in which there is a high element of vocation. It is extremely hard work. It is done against a background (or it was in 1965; it is less so now) of grim Victorian prisons. It is done sometimes in the face of lack of understanding, and criticism. But I would say of them that, in my experience, they were always most anxious and eager to promote reform; to study and consider ways in which prison conditions could be humanised. This is understandable, not only because they feel a vocation to enter into this Service, but also from the nature of their work, which is far less difficult and exasperating if the prisoners feel confidence and trust in the prison officers who have to look after them.
I would add this. On my left I see in the Box Mr. Duncan Fairn. He has now, I believe, earned a retirement which I hope he is enjoying. And I should like to couple with the Prison Administration the Prison Department in the Home Office. Any Secretary of State who has to make the extremely difficult decisions which that Office involves could not have had better and more devoted service than that given by the officers in that Department, based on their very long experience in this difficult field of administration. I should be lacking in gratitude if I did not also mention two other names: one, Sir Charles Cunningham, the then head of that great Department of State, than

645
whom no Secretary of State could ever wish for a wiser counsellor or more loyal friend at his side. The other is the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, whose help I found always most invaluable when I exercised those functions.
My Lords, much of what I should have liked to say and to discuss has already been traversed by previous speakers and I will not go over the same ground again. Your Lordships may, however, like to know at any rate something of the then contemporary thinking in 1965 when, at the Home Office, I and the Ministers with whom I shared responsibility, and my advisers, considered what were the sort of problems which might emerge if the death penalty were abolished, as it was. The increase in the numbers of prisoners serving life sentences obviously was one likelihood, and that has in fact eventuated; and I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that the numbers are still increasing. To complete the picture as it emerged from the figures, it might be worth while quoting to your Lordships from the White Paper, Cmnd. 4214, issued in November, 1969, from which I think the right reverend Prelate took his figures. May I quote these words:
"The term of imprisonment actually served"—
this was in November, 1969—
"by prisoners sentenced for life is determined according to the circumstances of every particular case—and every case is different. Since the war most life sentence prisoners have served a term equal to that served by a prisoner with a long fixed sentence of between 10 and 18 years."
That means, in effect, those years, less probably one third remission for good conduct.
The passage continues:
"Out of 180 such prisoners released in the 10 years 1959–1969 all but 19 had served for periods equivalent to a fixed sentence of 10½ years or longer on which the normal one third remission had been granted. A few life sentence prisoners were detained for much longer periods. One had spent 15 years in prison, one 20, and two were released after 21 years. Such very long periods have been unusual since the war. But the position is changing partly as a result of the abolition of capital punishment. There are some men who have already spent a considerable period in custody (in one case more than 20 years) and whom it would not in the present state of knowledge he safe to release into the community. A few may have to be detained for something approaching the term of their natural life."
646
My Lords, anyone who approaches this jurisdiction, the treatment of the long-term prisoner, I suppose must at once accept the obvious truth that the first requirement is to protect the public against the really dangerous criminal. In this case the consequences may be very harsh. It may mean that he has to serve a very long period of time, possibly even in some cases practically the whole of his natural life. That is harsh in his case; but clearly anybody who is charged with the responsibility of considering release dates for long-term prisoners and their custody in prison must accept that requirement as an overriding ditty on his part.
I hope your Lordships will not think it presumptuous if I venture to quote language which I remember using as a general statement of principle in relation to the very long-term prisoners. What I said was:
"Even with the worst type of prisoner, I would always be loath—and I know that any other holder of my office would be utterly loath—wholly to extinguish all hope in the mind of any human being that he would ever be allowed to walk outside the prison walls and converse with free men and women. If I were compelled to do that, I would, of course, do it, but in doing it I would, nevertheless, try to replace the loss of that hope by at least the hope that he would have inside the prison confines such amenities, activities and human contacts as would make his life a civilised one and enable him to endure the penalty which, unfortunately, the interests of the community require that he must undergo."
My Lords, I think, in retrospect, those are words which I should not wish to amend in view of the subsequent development of the problem. In exercising that jurisdiction which I had to exercise I was constantly very impressed with what seems to me, from my contact with very many prisoners in many prisons, to be the danger of deterioration. One had to measure the risk to the community against the risk of deterioration of the individual, which might make it impossible, or next to impossible, for him ever to re-enter society, and try to strike a proper balance in any particular case between those two horns of the dilemma.
We started in 1965 with the advice of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, particularly on that topic, and again, if I may, I will quote. There had been considerable divergence up to that time on the part of those who were

647
well versed in the problem as to how long the ordinary man—and as has been pointed out, prisoners differ immensely—could stand imprisonment. They were then talking of the ordinary Victorian prison, with its very grim features. How long could a prisoner stand that without showing what, in a loose sense, was described as deterioration? The conclusion that the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment came to was recorded in a paragraph of their Report which I should like to quote:
"This divergence of view no doubt reflects the difficulty of generalisation on such a subject; so much depends on the idiosyncrasy of the individual prisoner. Moreover, we think that 'deterioration' is not always used in the same sense. Some mean by it an actual degeneration of mental and physical powers that makes it impossible for a released prisoner to become a useful member of the community. To others it denotes no more than that gradual weakening of the capacity to make decisions and to take responsibility that sooner or later must affect all those who have their lives ordered for them in the artificial environment of a prison unless they are exceptionally strong characters. Deterioration in its graver sense is, we think, no longer a serious risk for those who serve the maximum normal term of 10 years or so. The conditions of prison life have been greatly changed in the last 25 years; improvements are constantly being made; we have suggested others; and so long as the present policy continues the risk will grow steadily less."
My Lords, in effect that was the advice that we started with in 1965. I hope I may claim to have made it my business personally at first hand at least to familiarise myself with the problem by constantly meeting the actual individuals involved and sitting, often in their cells, trying to talk to them. But when all is said and done, the position comes, sooner or later, sometimes frequently during the course of one week, when the Secretary of State finds on his desk the usual memorandum with reference to a prisoner. He may be a prisoner who was originally of disturbed mind and who is in Broadmoor or Moss Side, or a prisoner with regard to whose sanity there is no question who was in an ordinary prison. The reports not infrequently bore a depressing pattern: "This prisoner at first would not co-operate, then he cooperated better; he has now served nine years in prison; he has recently shown signs of beginning to go downhill; he stays by himself, does not talk to the other prisoners and is surly with the
648
prison staff. We feel that there is a process of degeneracy beginning in this prisoner." That is the sort of problem you have. Annexed to the report are very full and comprehensive psychiatric reports tracing the history of the prisoner. That is one side of it.
The instinct of any person with ordinary humane feelings, I hope, is to say, "I cannot be responsible for letting that man degenerate into what may ultimately become weakness of mind, if not insanity." Against that has to be laid the record of what he has done. One of my most distressing recollections is sitting in a cell talking to a prisoner who, when he was first taken into custody, had been found to be suffering from a disturbance of the mind. He had subsequently recovered, and when I saw him the prison administration were anxious that again he was beginning to go downhill after many years of custody. I am no psychiatrist, but it looked to me as if that was precisely what was happening; he was again slowly beginning to lose his reason; his mind was beginning to wander. That man was a double child murderer. What can one do in a case of that sort? However much one may be prompted by feelings of ordinary humanity, however much one must feel horrified at the idea of driving a person into insanity, those are the sort of practical problems the Secretary of State has to deal with and on which he receives such magnificent support from the quarters I have indicated.
One has to be as clear as one can be in saying what one means by the term "degeneracy". Possibly I can give examples which seemed to me to indicate the way a person's mind was going. May I say at the outset that I do not accept that it is only in the very long-term case that a man may become in a sense degenerate. If I camouflage the examples I give, your Lordships will understand. I remember a very long-term prisoner saying to me that when he came out in three or four years he was going to go straight. I asked where he intended to go, and he said he would be all right; he would be looked after by a friend who had been very good to him. I asked where was that friend, but he had not seen or heard of her for years and he had no idea whether she was alive or dead. That is the sort of thing I have in mind. Tie was perfectly sincere in all

649
he was saying, and he had a kind of defence by erecting a dreamland around himself. It would have been extremely wicked and foolish on the part of anyone speaking to him to do anything to break down that world of make-believe which fortified him. That is a long-term prisoner.
There is a different sort of degeneracy, perhaps not rightly called degeneracy, in the case of the five, six or seven year term prisoner which I noticed and was constantly meeting. A burglar said he had burgled because the neighbours said unkind things about him. I said, "Do you mean you tried to get even by burgling their houses?", and he replied, "No, I didn't burgle their houses; I burgled other people's houses". That, again, is disguised, but it is the effect of what he was saying. An even more sad case, I sometimes found, was the prisoner who in no conceivable sense could be said to be abnormal, the man very much in possession of himself, who had been in hostel. In those days hostel accommodation was unfortunately very short, but if a man had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than four years and had come to the end of his sentence, having earned the third remission, and was due to go out, he was put into a hostel within the prison precincts, if there was accommodation for him, and allowed to go and work without any supervision in the town, if employment could be found for him. This was done in order to accustom him to go back to normal civilian life.
This man—and I am certain he had good in him, although he had served a fairly long term, I think of five or six years—told me, looking rather embarrassed, "I was in hostel". The normal period is six months. I said, "How long had you been there?", and he said, "Five months". That is a type of degeneration, loss of will, loss of control, which I think is equally dangerous. That unfortunate man—I say "unfortunate" although no doubt he had done a great deal of wrong, but I believe he had good in him, if I am any judge of men—had been within one month of liberty after all those years in prison, and had been unable to resist temptation. He met up with some friends and got involved in what he called "doing a job", and he was caught and was back in prison. I suppose he is out
650
by now, and I can only hope that if he reads these words he will understand how sincerely I express the wish that he has made good in outside life.
These are the problems, and in so far as treatment is concerned the then thinking of the Home Office is incorporated very largely in two White Papers, one The Young Offender and the other The Adult Offender. Those two documents set out the then thinking for the purpose of prison reform. I should like to refer to three features. The White Paper, The Young Offender, is only indirectly relevant, if at all, to this debate—indirectly in the sense that probably those who have interested themselves in these matters will be conscious of a curious uniformity in the case history of so many long-term criminals: juvenile court, juvenile court, juvenile court, approved school, detention centre, probation, probation, probation, then three years, then seven years, and then your long-term prisoner. When I say that former of those White Papers is relevant to this problem, I say it because it is very important to try to prevent people from getting into the category of the long-term prisoner by going through that normal course and list of offences. Once they are there they are so difficult to get back.
If one looks at the situation from the point of view of the long-term prisoner, who may be evilly minded or may not be so evilly minded, who may have been unfortunate in the company he kept or the circumstances in which he lived, one finds that he is likely to say to himself, perhaps not explicitly but in his unconscious mind, "I have done things for which society will not forgive me; I am on the other side of the line and I consort henceforth with those in like case on that side". Once he is in that position it is very difficult to get back to the other side of the line, to a society which will respect him and have affection for him in the normal round of daily life. The Paper on juvenile offenders is very relevant to that aspect of affairs.
On the question of adult offenders, I want to say two things and then bring my remarks to a close. It is a fairly long White Paper and I shall not seek to go through it. The right reverend Prelate was a little critical, I thought—I do not complain—of the efforts made to try to modernise and humanise prison conditions. He is certainly not the only person

651
who has been so. The Prison Administration is constantly under attack, and so is the Home Office, and they are used to it. The point I wanted to make was this. One aspect dealt with in the White Paper on adult offenders relates to work done by prisoners, a subject which has been referred to in the debate. Anybody who goes into a prison—certainly it was so in my case—is most depressed when he sees a large number of men working in a room for a few shillings a week. That was the situation in 1965. It has been rather changed now. Paragraph 24 of the White Paper records that a scheme was being worked out, under which prisoners would receive normal wages; that is to say, the same wage that they would receive had that work been done outside, out of which they would contribute towards their own support and that of their families and perhaps also towards the cost of compensating their victims.
That was an endeavour the aim of which was to try to give them a sense of achievement and to help build up their self-respect. It was found, when the scheme was costed, that the difference between the value of work done in a prison workshop and that done in a properly organised factory, even if credit is taken for the reduction in the cost of the keep of their families and for their own keep in prison, would have involved an annual subsidy of some £6 million a year. Other schemes had to be thought of. There was an extensive prison building programme in progress and many things needed doing. Unfortunately it was impossible to make available the £6 million a year by way of subsidy, so other devices had to be found which I will not go into. I refer to this to show how uphill the work of prison reform often is.
The other aspect of that White Paper upon which I should like to touch is that with which we gratefully associate the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. When I look back at that person who was five months in a hostel and could not last out the other month, I always think to myself: the provision whereby he could earn an extra one-third by way of remission from his sentence, on parole or licence, I should have thought would have been extremely helpful to that man. If he had been sentenced to six years—and that was the kind of sentence; I do
652
not remember what it was—he would get the normal one-third off for good conduct, and if he had managed to convince my noble friend Lord Hunt, he could hope to get another two years off. Thus he would serve two years out of his six.
I felt convinced at the time—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will feel able to agree with me—that in that sort of case the man would have retained sufficient will power to last out that extra month if he had managed to get four years off his six years. I was rather disappointed to hear from my noble friend how rarely it has been possible to find prisoners who were suitable for the extra one-third off. But I perfectly understand, and I accept at once that the overriding consideration is the safety of the community as a whole.
My Lords, those are the observations that I wished to add from the point of view of one who, at any rate, has had to exercise this extremely painful jurisdiction.
6.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, before I say anything at all I must declare an interest on two counts. I have been a magistrate for over 26 years and I have been in Dartmoor. I hasten to add, in connection with the second interest, that it was as an official visitor and not as an inmate. In recent years, as we have heard to-day, much more attention has been given, and properly given, to the question of the reform and rehabilitation of the individual who has received a prison sentence. I hope that this attention will continue to be given and will grow. At the same time, I submit that it would be fatal if we lost our sense of proportion in this matter.
We have moved a long way from the days when hanging could equally be the penalty for murdering a human being or stealing a sheep—and thank God for it! In other words, we have vastly improved our sense of proportion. We must maintain this improvement; but I submit that to do so we must have a differential. By this, I mean that our view and treatment of the habitual criminal or the criminal who has committed a really dastardly crime must be poles apart from our view and treatment of the minor and, in most cases, first offender. Most of us abstain from committing a crime because we know that such an action—for instance, robbery

653
with violence or beating one's wife because the soup is cold—is morally wrong. At least, I hope that is the reason. But the sad fact remains that there are, and I fear always will be, individuals who care not a hoot for the moral outlook. When weighing things up, on one side of the scales is placed a potential gain, and on the other the potential penalty if they are caught; it is only if the latter is sufficiently severe that such men will be deterred from their criminal intentions.
The severest penalty allowed by law to-day is a long-term prison sentence. One reads and hears criticisms of this penalty. Sometimes the critics produce telling phrases, such as, "a human being rotting, physically and mentally, in gaol". Whatever may be the accuracy or inaccuracy of such a phrase, it will probably do no harm to spread them around among the "Mr. Bigs" of the criminal fraternity. But, to conclude, I strongly submit that the severe deterrent is the only possible way of preventing crime when the potential criminal has no moral outlook. To-day, a long-term prison sentence is the only really severe deterrent. The peaceable citizen, the potential victim, is more worthy of any consideration than the potential criminal. Therefore, for the sake of the peaceable citizen, long-term prison sentences must continue.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, when I noticed that my noble and ecclesiastical friend the Bishop of Durham had put down this particular Motion, I was fairly certain that if I took part in the debate I should find myself in agreement with him. So it has happened, apart from one minor difference. I should like to thank him for the clarity and the comprehensiveness of his setting out of the problem. If there is in this kind of debate a canvas which attracts the larger brush, then perhaps I may be permitted to draw some inferences from an experience which was mine for about 20 years as a prison chaplain, as the Methodist Nonconformist chaplain appointed to Holloway prison, which is no more, or is soon to be no more, and to Pentonville prison, which as we know in those days was for those who in crime had acquired an "A" level rather than an "O" level, though I understand that recently it has gone more comprehensive.
654
It is from the experience which I gained then, and the stench of Pentonville—the ineradicable smell of Pentonville is still in my nostrils—that I came to a number of conclusions which have not changed over the years, and indeed have been fortified, even to-day by the contents of this debate. In the first place, it knocked out of my mind and out of my system any sentimentality which regards a prisoner as an unfortunate and disregards the fact of evil. Any prison is a wicked place, and it is foolish to pretend that it is anything else.
There may be a forcible reduction of crime, but there is ample evidence of sin, and in my judgment it would be quite erroneous to proceed on the assumption that the institutions we can create and the methods we can adopt can ignore the fundamental characteristic of human behaviour and the nature of what, ecclesiastically, we very properly call "sin". At the same time, a contrary opinion was equally clearly fixed in my mind: it was, to what an extent circumstances plays an imperative, or at least a decisive, part in the behaviour patterns of so many who find themselves in Pentonville prison. On the same principle that Pascal's description of the shape of Cleopatra's nose affected the subsequent history of the West, so it is, I believe, completely true that in many respects when we look at the prisoner we have to say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I"; and in any case we have to recognise that, were we put in something of the same hazards and circumstances which afflicted our fellows, we might not stand in such rigid judgment of their behaviour.
Alongside those two very general impresssions, which have lasted with me through the years, was another one which is far more controversial. But I declare it, and shall then proceed, I hope, to say something about the particular conditions of long sentences which are, in microcosm, an indication of their general characteristics. I believe that the prison system is irrevocably flawed in its very essence. I believe that, sooner or later, it must be superseded by a system entirely different. The very fabric of the system as expressed in places like Pentonville prison is an example of the way in which, from the standpoint of the populace, it is still

655
regarded as a place to which you send those who are either inconvenient, in your own estimation, or anti-social in their behaviour, so that you may then forget about them, sleep soundly and quietly in your beds, and have no fear that they will rampage about the place. The only fear is that if the sentence is not long enough the day will come when you have again to concern yourself with their reappearance.
This is not something which can be modified or altered by any of the various methods, which I cordially accept and for which I am profoundly grateful, that have modified the system as I knew it 40 years ago in Pentonville prison. Nevertheless, it is still, as a prison system, committed in general principle to deterrence and retribution, and has not the fundamental opportunities, however changes are made, for that reformative process, which I am sure the right reverend Prelate and I would agree is the only one consistent ultimately with the Christian faith, and the only principle which can finally justify the various processes of incarceration and separation of individuals from the community in which they live. I do not believe that the prison system, as such, can be reformed. The evidence of the various changes which have been made already is first-class evidence that it has sooner or later, to be replaced.
Now from the general to the particular. What are the problems associated particularly with long sentences? In my experience the first problem is that if you imprison a man in conditions which do not substantially vary for a period of more than four or five years—and that is a very long sentence—you are in grave danger of destroying irreparably some spiritual dimension in his character. I have known many long-term prisoners; those who have returned to Pentonville, and those whom I visited elsewhere. I cannot remember one who was not grievously and irreparably impaired in some very necessary part of his spiritual or psychological makeup—not one. I reflect that on one occasion when I was taking part in a television discussion, there was on the screen a recorded interview with none other than Sir Donald Finnemore who, as a High Court judge, gave it as his opinion that on no evidence that came to him could be say that prison, at any
656
rate a long sentence, had ever done any prisoner good. That is a considerable comment from a man of the widest experience.
It can be argued that the doing of good to the individual prisoner is not the sum total of the process of punishment or incarceration in a prison. But to look at a long sentence which is primarily concerned with the behaviour pattern of that criminal, and is set within the general framework of what is to be expected of him is, I believe, to condemn that man, unless—and I shall come to this a little later on—there is a change in the remedial process, to a life which thereafter will be irreparably impaired. But, worse than that—and I take the words of the right reverend Prelate—is the deterioration. I was glad to hear my noble friend quote from a previous statement he had made, in eloquence which I cannot attempt to copy, but the substance of which I will dare to repeat.
Whatever the circumstances, whatever the heinousness of the crime a man has committed, whatever the nature of his misdemeanour, whatever the atrocity he has afflicted upon the community in which he lives, I do not believe that you have any right to take away hope from him. I think men can live without love—many do so and do it fairly well. I suppose it can be argued that people can do without faith. But, with the third of that trilogy, I do not believe that any man can go on living anything of a semblance of a true life if, however long the tunnel, he cannot see light at the end of it. Therefore, the sentences which destroy the dimension of hope, as they very often do even with a period of four or five years, are impermissible to a civilised society. If it goes on very much longer it will certainly create a condition under which he becomes, and will remain, less than a man. This does not in any way exonerate a man from the crime that he has committed. It does not in any way suggest a soft or sentimental attitude to him. I think it refers to his inalienable right, the right to hope, which I believe is the substance of true life.
There is a third category of deterioration which I will mention, though it is not a subject for which I have much stomach. It is true that for many people who are segregated and cannot express

657
fully their sexual desires, proper desires of that kind, life perhaps becomes a mixture of fantasy and masturbation. This is a condition which is deplorable and with which, if I may say so, Christian theology must make a much more serious attempt to come to grips.
There is an added evil, a monstrous evil, connected with the segregation of men in prison and the homosexuality and perversions which prevail in prisons, particularly over the long periods in which a man is deprived of the natural expression of his sexual desires. These are not only deplorable, in many cases they are disastrous. These are some of the conditions which, in my judgment, make it imperative that the long sentences be treated with such seriousness as either to get rid of them altogether, or to make such provisions as to alter them substantially so that they can become conformable, in some measure at least, to what a civilised community ought to expect and employ as its public measures.
In the first instance, I do not suggest that a man who has served five years, and thereafter is in danger, as a general rule, of deterioration and the loss of a spiritual dimension of character, should be automatically liberated with a kind of blessing on his head, as if he is entitled once again to take his place in society and to be free from all restraints. Of course not. What I suggest is that part of the element of hope which should be offered to the prisoner who must be segregated, perhaps for a long time, is that after a certain period there should be a variety and change in the actual custodial conditions which he suffers, and from which he may progressively improve, thereby having in an indeterminate sentence the option, or the opportunity later, of being released when he has acquitted himself sufficiently to be entitled to such release.
Secondly, I am quite sure that the block system of prison must increasingly give way to the smaller units of custodial treatment in which ever-increasing opportunities of freedom, even for short periods, ought to be interspaced with those custodial conditions. One of the answers, surely—and it has been practised elsewhere with considerable effect—is that the married man should have marital opportunities, if you like in weekends when he is on holiday from prison. This is not to regard his crime as any the
658
less heinous or discreditable, but to preserve him from the total deterioration into which he is likely to fall unless such measures are made available. I want to canvass the opportunity of regular holidays for prisoners serving long sentences. I know that there are infinitely many problems associated with the coming back of the prisoner who may take a delight in his holiday and may not want to return to the prison cell.
I agree with all of those things. But I am much more concerned in this debate—and this has been, of course, the emphasis of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham—not with the methods by which we ultimately cleanse the community in which we live of the crimes which infest it, but with what are the particular effects and problems associated with long-term sentences.
I refer lastly to the field of religion. I do not intend to ignore it, and your Lordships would not expect me so to do. I have had long experience in conducting services regularly every week in Pentonville prison. They were not an unqualified success. We were never short of church organists—I do not quite know why. But there was always dubiety and difficulty in choosing familiar hymns, for while the chaplain was singing one set of words from the hymn book he had a strong impression that the congregation were singing other words. Sometimes the hymns were, if not ill-chosen, at any rate startlingly chosen. Singing "Onward Christian Soldiers!" and hearing them yell at the top of their voices:
"Brothers we are treading
Where the saints have trod"
was hardly an accurate description of their condition, but was perhaps an indication of their hope. But, on a more melancholy note, do your Lordships know the favourite hymn, "The sands of time are sinking"? One of the most heart-searching of all the phrases, which I so well remember the men singing, is this:
"Slowly the hours of daylight fade,
So fade within my heart.
The hopes of earthly joy and bliss
Which one by one depart."
I am not sentimental about prisoners, but it would ill-befit this cloth that I wear if I did not claim that one of the ways in which to ameliorate the condition of the long-sentence prisoner is, as the right reverend Prelate has suggested,

659
vastly to improve the spiritual services and ministries which can accompany that time of trial and tribulation. I believe in conversion—of course I do. But, if I may give an illustration of what happens, I could have brought a witness to-day who, after spending 40 years in prison, is not only going straight now, but will continue to go straight. He was not converted in prison; he became aware of spiritual resources, which up to that time he had ignored or knew nothing about, out of prison. I hope that the day will come when we shall discover methods which are more consistent with the Christian faith of finding correctional treatment that does not incarcerate a man and expose him to the sort of deterioration of which we have heard so much to-day.
I would conclude by saying this. If we were to apply to this problem a tithe of our ingenuity and application that we have devoted to more sordid and materialistic problems, I do not think it would be beyond our wit and our understanding to make a world where the prisoner was not treated sentimentally as if he were unfortunate, but was treated creatively as if, whatever he had done, there was a possibility, provided there was no medical impediment, that he might recover. The best deterrent, ultimately, to crime, the best reformative process and the best protection of society are the recovery and rehabilitation of the prisoner. Therefore I welcome most heartily what has been said to-day and I hope that it will be fruitful.
6.34 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate. He put the Motion down a long time ago and we have had a long time to think about it. I have been through a period of great confusion and I think it is an appallingly difficult problem. But your Lordships will all he relieved to hear that I have come to what I think is a firm conclusion. But before I say anything more, I should like to say that our debates on penal reform suffer a little from our all being on the same side. On the whole, in our debate we do not suspect one another of being floggers or hangers, and the other side is insufficiently voiced. There are very important problems here,
660
and I should like to say—in spite of the fact that he is not in his place at the moment—that I was glad the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, took the line that if people behave very badly you must "slap them down" hard. That is roughly what he said.
I want, in particular, to follow the line which was started by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. It was pursued by other noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Stonham and, later, my noble friend Lord Soper—I refer to the question of the indeterminate sentence. In the first place, I think one must clear one's mind about long sentences. Nobody suggests that long sentences are not a deterrent. What we suggest is that a 14-year sentence is not a noticeably larger deterrent than a 10-year sentence and therefore, as the last four years are probably extremely cruel, there is no point in raising the sentence from 10 years to 14 years. There is a period where this argument does not apply. It is perfectly clear that a 6-year sentence is more of a deterrent than a 2-year sentence. So this question, like so many others in this world, is not absolutely clear. But one can say that if you ever give more than 10 years sentence you are not increasing the deterrent in any way. I would also say that if you are doing something which there is a good deal of evidence to show is cruel and there is any way of avoiding it, then you should avoid it.
The next point is that, in my opinion, the length of sentence is decided at the wrong time. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed this out. It seems to me that the judge (and it is noticeable that we are unable to interest the learned Judges in this House enough for them to attend any of these debates, which is a great pity; I know that they are very busy, but I should like to mention that I miss seeing them here) should see to a fair trial and allot a period of punishment—and by "punishment" I mean, literally, punishment. This is something which cannot be dissociated from crime. I think that society demands it and, at this stage at any rate, I do not wish to deprive society of that satisfaction. But once it has been decided what the proper period of punishment is, the learned judge is not in a position to decide whether the man is still a danger, or when he ceases

661
to be. In other words, the judge is not in a position to decide whether society still wants protection from the man.
So it seems to me that we come to the indeterminate sentence, either as practised in Denmark where in certain circumstances you are sent to somewhere like Herstedvester, which takes the most difficult cases of all and whose business it is to turn them out as soon as they can; or the model in some American States where the judge sets a minimum and a maximum. At the moment, our normal practice, coupled with parole, is in a sense in that form, and I should like to suggest, following on the original suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that after due consideration we introduce legislation which compels the Judiciary, if they are to give a sentence of 10 years or over, to give it in the form of a minimum and a maximum. I should like to go further than that and lay down the largest minimum period. I should like it to be 5 years. If it is too little to satisfy society or the judges, I will, if I have to, settle for more. But I think there should be a specific period, and that it should not be within the judge's power to exceed it, although of course he should be able to give less. The maximum period is of course life, which we already have in the form of a special type of indeterminate sentence.
If this is done—and this is a very serious suggestion—there are going to be two effects. One is that you are not going to let out people who are not fit to be let out until the maximum period has been served. In other words, if you give a man 5 to 20 years, he will not get out until he has served 20 years, unless the prison authorities, through the Parole Board or however it is done, let him go. Equally, you will not keep in people who, according to the best information, are perfectly fit to go out. Those are two very great gains which entirely alter the whole business of long sentences. It seems to me to make sense, but of course there are many difficulties. I do not know whether people would be content with even 7 years.
I noticed in the Guardian yesterday that after a very dreadful murder a young man was very properly sentenced to life by the judge, who said, "There is talk going around that 'life' now means quite a short time. This is quite wrong;
662
and in your case it is going to mean at least 10 years". Maybe we should allow them to have as long as 10 years—I do not mind. But we must have a figure and a minimum figure, and that can only be done with two additions to your armoury. In the first place, you have got to have the right places to send this quite small number of people. The noble Lord told us that the number is about 1,000 to 1,100 now. It may increase a certain amount, but out of the 26,000 adults, or whatever it is, who are in prison, it is not going to be a very large proportion. You have got to have somewhere to send them which is deliberately trying to get them out again. We have nowhere in England of this kind except borstal, which does to some extent do this. Herstedvester does exactly this; it is its business. At Grendon we could very easily do it, except that all our people, of course, have fixed sentences; but in so far as parole applies, we try to do it. I think some of the open prisons do it to some extent. If you deal only with the long-term prisoner, with the very serious offender, you are dealing with a small enough number, in my opinion, to deal with him properly, and I believe we have the buildings if they were allocated. If we could have three prisons to take these 1,000 people (or, if we include Grendon, which would be another 300, we could have four prisons devoted to these people) I believe we could create an atmosphere where these men would come knowing that they had a chance of getting out but that the opportunity rested on their own shoulders.
Coupled with this, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think it was, said, you must have proper after-care. The after-care which exists at the moment, which is a probation officer with a case load of 40, 50 and sometimes 60, having four or five discharged prisoners among them, is not satisfactory. I have a suggestion to make. We are thinking aloud to-day, my Lords; that is the point of this sort of debate. I would say that the maximum case load that should be given to anybody who is looking after one of these long-term prisoners is five or six. I would use recruits to the Probation Service for this, working under the supervision of a senior probation officer. I would call them "helpers", or something

663
like that—the Danes call them "social aides"—and I would bring them into prison at the earliest stage at which anybody in the prison thought the prisoner stood a chance. In other words, you would say to him, "We are beginning to think that in due course we may be able to recommend you for parole, though we have not got there yet. But if we do, you have got to have a chap you are prepared to work with when you go out. We are going to try out one or two on you. If you do not like the first, you can reject him and you can have a second. But sooner or later you have got to have somebody you can get on with before we let you out". This, I think, would work very rapidly; they would soon get on with these young men quite well.
In my opinion, by paying a social worker of this type the normal rate (which is certainly not £2,000 a year, but let us call it that) he could keep six men out of prison. At £1,250 a man, your Lordships can do the sums yourselves. We would make money out of it in the neatest possible way. This is an absolutely serious suggestion. I do not believe the indeterminate sentence is any good without these two things. I think you must have really close, personal after-care; and I visualise the biggest land-mark in a long-term prisoner's time in prison to be the day when he is given a helper. I think it could be used extremely well. I believe you must have this, and I think you have got to have prisons which are orientated in exactly the opposite way to that in which they are now.
My Lords, this has nothing whatever to do with security. Maximum security, except for the expense, would be no disadvantage to this sort of prison. The prisoners in Grendon do not mind the wall in the least. In fact, in my opinion they could get out if they wanted to. We have been open for eight years, and, as the noble Lord said, we have 19 "lifers" there and a lot of other very awkward customers, and we have never had an escape. That is not because our security is as good as all that, though it is good: we have never had an escape because the men think something is being done for them.
664
My Lords, this cannot happen tomorrow, but I really do not see, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested, why it should not be the day after to-morrow. We are very apt to go on looking at these things, when they quite obviously ought to be done, and not do them. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to suggest absolutely seriously to the Home Secretary and to his colleagues that a Departmental Committee should really look at this question. It is not the first time that they have thought about it; I know that. It could be done; it could be made acceptable to the public. It would put the judges in a very much better position to do what they are doing. It would take away from them almost gall the criticism which exists at the moment; and I think you would get people coming out of prison when they ought to come out and staying in when they ought to stay in, and this would be a real achievement. In closing, I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate that if nothing else happens as a result of this debate, it has certainly done me a lot of good because it has made me think very hard, and I am extremely grateful to him.
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, when, as a member of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, I first visited the four special units, I was so appalled by the cramped and cabined conditions, and by the general atmosphere of hopelessness and misery, that I almost began to think that it had been wrong to abolish capital punishment. I almost began to believe that the alternative which we had imposed upon certain offenders was something even worse. So I was delighted to hear from the Minister that the number of prisoners actually held in those four wings has been considerably reduced, and that the Durham wing is to be closed, I think he said shortly, and the other three before very long. Because, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out to us in his introductory speech, the real problem presented by the long-term prisoner is that of preventing him from deteriorating into something which is almost an animal, if not a vegetable, existence, and it is extremely difficult to do that, or to do anything about it, unless you can create quite different

665
conditions within the prisons from those which obtain now.
I am glad to hear that the Home Office has adopted the proposals of the Advisory Council that the plan to build one prison for all these Grade A people should be abandoned and that they should be dispersed among other prisons so that the Grade A category would enjoy the same privilege as those in all the other three categories of being contained in prisons with a mixed population. We all seem to be agreed that, because of the Grade A category prisoner, in certain prisons you must have a maximum perimeter security it you are to have minimum restrictions inside, and that for the other three categories there must be that amount of security which is necessary to prevent their premature return to society.
But I am sorry that three existing prisons in the middle of cities are to be be turned into prisons where some of these Category A people can be sent, because I do not think that those prisons, or indeed any of our 19th century prisons, can ever be adequately adapted for the kind of régime that we are all, I think, agreed should be introduced once an adequate degree of security has been established. Prisons which were built to keep people in cells, and where security rested to a very great extent on heavy bars on cell windows; prisons which were built so that the prisoners could see as little out of their windows as possible—prisons of that kind contain conditions which are totally inconsistent with the kind of régime for which we are searching. I am afraid that we shall not get very far towards what we want unless and until either new prisons are built or existing prisons are gutted from the inside and completely converted. That is my first point.
My second point is that if we are to have a really free and liberal régime inside a prison, we must first of all hive off from the prison population all the violent psychopaths and schizophrenics and probably the more serious sexual offenders, and send them to special institutions like Grendon Underwood. We ought to have built and we must build more Grendon Underwoods where such offenders will receive highly-expert psychiatric treatment. Long-term prisoners perhaps will then not present
666
such a serious problem, because the problem will be simply a medical one: a problem of curing them of the mental, emotional and psychological diseases from which they suffer. Indeed, in their case it has always been a medical problem.
Once you remove them, once you get perimeter security, prison officers can concentrate on what is their proper job, which is not to keep worrying about how to prevent possible escapes but how to build up again the character of those in their charge, how to restore to these people their self-respect, a certain confidence in themselves and, above all, a growing conviction that they can become and are becoming respected and useful members of the community in which they find themselves; respected and useful both to their peers and to those in charge of them. That, I think, is the greatest element of hope that we can give to any prisoner: to convince him that he can become, and that we all intend to enable him to become, an accepted member of the community in which he has a really useful place.
One of the greatest contributory causes of the deterioration which sets in in practically every case of a long-term prisoner is that he becomes so entirely dependent upon the decisions of other people. He becomes a cog in a machine: he does what he is told to do; he takes what is provided for him, and he has no responsibility and no decisions to take. We need to try to create a régime where, progressively, the area of free choice and personal decision is increased; where, year by year, the prisoner may look forward to obtaining what, if you like, you may call privileges but at any rate obtaining a wider area of choice. The actual details of how that could be done must be left to the experts.
It must be combined with the necessary element of security. There are matters to be considered, such as prisoners' clothes. At sonic stage during a long sentence a prisoner should reach a point at which he will be allowed to get out of prison uniform and to choose what he wants to wear. I think the prison uniform itself has a bad psychological effect upon the prisoners. There could be a choice in food and a choice whether he should have more visits, more letters or greater freedom of association,

667
or whether to stay in his own cell on a particular day and not go out to work. There should be as many free choices as it is possible to devise for the long-term prisoners. I believe that that would go a great distance towards preventing him from the otherwise inescapable deterioration.
My Lords, if one were publicly to advocate a régime of that kind, then immediately one would come up against a very strong public opinion which would hold that this was sentimental, that it was being soft and that it was undermining the deterrent effect of the punishment. What we are engaged upon undoubtedly is an immense campaign of public education. We have to convince people that a very long sentence represents, in the first place, the abhorrence and condemnation of society at a particular offence which has struck deeply at the roots of society. Secondly, it represents a hoped-for deterrent, that the offence will not be repeated by other people. Thirdly, it represents an element of public security, that this particular offender, anyway, will not have the opportunity of repeating his offence for a very long time. I think that the first and second objectives are taken care of by the sentence itself. The sentence proclaims what happens to a man who does that sort of thing. It is a deterrent. The sentence proclaims the abhorrence which society feels for this particular offence. The mere passing of the sentence achieves those two objects.
So the great bulk of these long-term sentences are being served almost exclusively in the interests of public security—and the public must be educated to know that; and to realise that, just as we take it for granted that we pay a great deal for the defence forces and the police, so we must pay quite a lot if we are to be secure from the activities of certain convicted criminals. We have a great campaign of public education in front of us and I am most grateful to my right reverend brother for having promoted this debate as one contribution to that campaign.
6.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken has struck a note which has
668
been struck with equal eloquence by other speakers this afternoon when he tried to set out a policy of hope for these our fellow human beings whom we consider we are compelled to lock up for so many years. We are all greatly indebted to his right reverend brother the Lord Bishop of Durham, both for his splendid speech and for selecting this aspect of the prison problem.
In the last 15 years—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and I are survivors from the first prison debate in this House—we have had quite a few debates on prisons. But, inevitably, the discussions all too often became bogged down in questions which, while of great importance, were in the end economic or even financial questions—questions such as, "How many new buildings?", or "How are we to pay the staff more?", and other matters of that kind. These issues we have been, as it were, spared this afternoon. We have had no economic alibis. No one has said that it is going to cost so much to provide a proper treatment for these people, the relatively small number under discussion. But we reveal ourselves as a community not yet at all certain as to what to do about them; so it is the philosophical and human problem that has been brought out so well by the Motion that we have been debating this afternoon, framed as it has been by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
My Lords, I am tempted—although at this hour I shall certainly not fall for the temptation—to comment freely on the speeches of other noble Lords, if only to express my agreement with them. I would express a very large measure of agreement, for example, with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and so many others. My old friend Lord Stow Hill will forgive me if I differ from him—a little ungenerously he may think—at one point of his argument. He spoke most movingly and, in a way, with special understanding—which I suppose has been denied to the rest of us—of the problems of a certain kind of prisoner. But when he paid his tribute to the Prison Administration I am afraid that I jibbed. While I am ready to pay tribute certainly to Mr. Duncan Fairn, and to Lady Reading, who was also mentioned, and to individual prison officers, I am afraid that

669
when I think of the Prison Administration, in the widest sense, I have to place on them (taking the officials and Ministers together; and in the last resort it must be Ministers) the responsibility for the fact that we find ourselves where we are.
If one is going to congratulate the Administration in the widest sense, one must express, it seems to me, a measure of satisfaction with our arrangements which I, at least, am far from feeling. I will not say more about the Home Office—it would need a Secret Session for me to be able to do so—or I might lend aid and comfort to prisoners, who would exploit the comments which might reach them all too easily. But, at any rate, I am afraid that I cannot join in that tribute to the system, or to those who have run the system over the last 25 years. If anyone says that we get the prisons we deserve, meaning that the public are to blame, that also I cannot swallow. That is another alibi, and I think that there are too many alibis in the world of prison reform.
However, my Lords, I must come to my own contentions. Undoubtedly the great majority of those with whom we are concerned this afternoon have committed grave crimes in the sight of God. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, struck a religious note; but none of us—not even Lord Soper—can say how deep is their innocence or guilt compared with our own. That is hidden from us. But in any human society we have to make some calculations about the guilt or responsibility of those who break the criminal law; and in these cases we must regard them as having been, when they committed their crime, very guilty men. Of one thing I am sure—I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, actually said this, but I thought I detected it in his argument; that is, that no human being is irredeemable. That my Lords, I postulate; if I did not believe that, I think I should shoot myself. At any rate, I personally submit to the House that no human being is irredeemable; and when I say that I do not mean only in the next world; I mean in this vale of tears.
Starting from that, my Lords, you may feel that I am going to lead the "softies". I certainly have been accused of being
670
a "softie" in this connection. Lord Donaldson's wife, Lady Donaldson, wrote a fascinating book some years ago about a famous novelist, Mr. Evelyn Waugh, who was a great friend of Lord Donaldson and his wife, and of myself. In this book it states that Evelyn Waugh wrote in 1964 to Lady Donaldson that he was so glad that I personally was not going to be Home Secretary when the Labour Government was formed. If Mr. Waugh had been closer to the scene, he would have realised that my chances against the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, were negligible; but he was not in politics. I do not think that he was close enough to know about the wisdom and firmness of Lord Stow Hill. Had he known, I am sure he would have said that he was very happy to think that the noble Lord was at the Home Office.
But Mr. Waugh did say that if I had been there the criminals would all have got loose and we should all have been murdered in our beds. That was Mr. Waugh's conclusion about my attitude. As that idea may have got about, let me say that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that judicial punishment must figure in any civilised society. Without it, law and order would be impossible. I wrote a book to that effect, but it is rather late to begin boosting it now as it was written about ten years ago.
However, my Lords, let us start from that point. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other speakers (not perhaps altogether with the noble Lord Lord Soper; but we can discuss that at some other time) the thought that punishment is necessary. But punishment, if it is going to be punishment, must be painful; that is an essential element of it. It is true that one may have incarceration against one's will, reluctant incarceration, which is not painful. I think that earlier someone mentioned long spells in hospital. Of course, my Lords, if one goes to a boarding school, one may not like it; but at any rate it is not punitive. So that all incarceration, reluctant incarceration, is not necessarily punitive. I lay great stress in these relatively few remarks on the distinction between punitive and non-punitive incarceration.
I am convinced that, whatever language is employed about it, prison will always

671
contain a punitive element. It will certainly always seem to the prisoners to contain a punitive element. That, I am sure, is why the noble Lord, Lord Soper, would like to get rid of it in times to come. But so far as the next period ahead is concerned, in the foreseeable future, I think that we must take it that we are going to be stuck with prison as figuring largely in our system of punishment. Even in the most enlightened sort of prison to-day few prisoners will ever believe—this is my experience, and I doubt whether anyone would differ from me—that their gaolers are really their benefactors, their moral saviours; they simply will not "wear" that.
Prisoners become attached to particular officers, and even to particular governors. I have met many of prisoners who admired and respected their own governor, and certainly the officers they knew best. But they regarded these officers and governors as helpless instruments of an evil system. The last time this was brought home to me was when I was visiting Parkhurst prison a week ago. I was going round with a most enlightened and popular governor. He was telling the prisoners that they were there for treatment; or it was hoped that as time went on they would realise that they were there for treatment. One prisoner was far too polite to do more than raise a sceptical eyebrow, but I suggest that no prisoner will ever believe that he is in prison for treatment.
My Lords, I come back to the long-term prisoner specifically. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will understand why I cannot join in those tributes to the system, or the Home Office which is running it, when I touch for a moment on the details of the present situation. I have known enough excellent Ministers and officials at the Home Office in the last 25 years to be aware of the immense gap between their good intentions and the way it all seems to the prisoner on the receiving end. I will not say much about the top security wings: it has been said already, so eloquently and so conclusively. Certainly had these wings been continued much longer they would have been revealed as a lamentable and inhumane conception. A top security prisoner in one of these wings wrote to me recently:
672
"Security prisoners are in prison for storage, nothing else."
Is that a malevolent or fatuous remark? It is not very different from what your Lordships have been saying about these top security wings this afternoon.
I must confess with honesty that some prisoners, if asked, would say that they would rather be in a top security wing than in any other part of the prison. I do not say that they are happy there, but they would rather be there than in an ordinary prison. One reason is, of course, that they do not do any work. I have inspected all four wings at different times, and there has never been any work going on: under those conditions it seems impossible to persuade the prisoners to work, and, as I say, some prefer it that way. There is also a higher ratio of prison officers, and in one security wing the relationship might be rather better because there were so many more officers than there would be in the prisons as a whole. Nevertheless, I join in condemning these wings in the country, and I am glad that we shall not have them with us much longer.
Quite apart from the security wings, what I find so appalling is the inhumanity of official policy in regard to small things. It is all so different on the spot from the speeches which are made by admirable Ministers, whether of this Government, the last Government or the Government before that. One prisoner known to me (in fact his case was raised in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton) wished to study sociology, and various difficulties were placed in his way. For example, he was refused permission to obtain some books that he required from his brother. Another prisoner, who was allowed, in one top security wing, to have his child on his knee, was refused that concession when he went to another top security wing. All sorts of violence followed. These little interferences were put right eventually, like many others, but only after they were taken up at the highest level and with a great deal of "argey-bargey".
Identical twins, inseparable before their imprisonment, have not hitherto been allowed to meet even once a year, which seems to me distinctly hard, and I should think bad psychology. Another long-term prisoner was at first refused permission (this was at the end of last

673
year) to send out three Christmas cards painted by himself. Eventually permission was secured—and all sorts of arguments went on about it with the Home Office—to send three cards. But then there was an argument as to whether he was to be allowed to send a fourth card, which he wanted to send to an official of the prison who had moved to another part of the country. Eventually that was put right with the Home Office. I do not know what will happen next year—whether he will be allowed to send five or six. It is this kind of pettiness which arouses in me so much indignation, and which really does, if I may say so, make the actualities of prison life so different from the ideal statements.
In this context, I should like to mention one more serious point of criticism, as distinct from these relatively small points that I have mentioned. About three months ago, a prisoner serving a life sentence wrote to tell me that he was now prepared to undergo psychiatric treatment. This was something quite new, and in this particular case very encouraging. This is what he wrote from a top security wing:
"Leaving aside my argument that to a person who will never be released from prison a standard psychiatric treatment is rather pointless, and accepting the possibility that some type of psychiatric treatment could help one live a fuller and more useful life in Prison, I am quite willing to co-operate as fully as possible in this connection should any officials be similarly optimistic, which I doubt. I know that the success of such treatment depends finally on the attitude of the patient, and I acknowledge that I have certain character traits which I want eradicated if possible."
To anyone who knows that prisoner that represents a large advance after several years in a top security wing. There is a man who is not deteriorating at the moment, but is improving. One might have hoped that the Home Office would respond rather rapidly to this encouraging sign. It may well be that this is the turning point in the life of a prisoner with a grave background. Yet three months later I have been unable to obtain any assurance from the Home Office that any positive steps have been or will be taken. If this chance is missed, I should not care to share the responsibility of those who have missed it. On the one hand, we agree that there is a grave danger of deterioration in these wings with long-term prisoners, but when there
674
is a sign of improvement, if we do not grasp the opportunity, then we can be quite sure that eventually at least deterrioration is bound to come.
Some of these issues—though not the last one, I think—may seem trivial. But they are not trivial matters to the prisoners. And the Home Office do not exactly treat them as urgent if we can judge by the long delays of weeks or even months. If the House asks me why I think these long delays occur, I must in a sentence give my opinion. It is no criticism of one Party, one individual, one official, one Minister or one anything, but a criticism of the situation in which we find ourselves. The high people in the prisons, the governors and so on, are very nervous of deciding anything which would lead to criticism from the Home Office. The Home Office officials are very nervous of deciding any sensitive matters, at least, which are not laid before the Home Secretary—not necessarily the present Home Secretary but any Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is so busy with Northern Ireland and other things that he simply has not the time for the running of the prison, system. That is in my opinion the cause of about three-quarters of these delays. The net result, whatever the cause, is that to prisoners the system (we know it to be run by high-minded gentlemen) seems to be a piece of collective callousness, and if we were in their place I doubt whether we should think differently. That is the criticism of what is being done now to the long-term prisoner.
I want to come to the future, and I shall not be long about it. I wish to lay before the House one kind of proposal which I daresay can be fitted into the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I am not putting mine against theirs, but I am just throwing it into the common pool. How can we bring hope to these fellow beings who are so devoid of hope at the present time? I applaud the prison hostel system. I am amazed and rather shocked that it has not been developed more rapidly in the last 10 or 15 years. I pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the working of the parole system. Since I was a hit churlish in joining the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in a tribute, I will try to compensate by paying him a tribute. It was, after all, the noble Lord, Lord

675
Stow Hill, who produced the Bill that instituted the parole system. If anybody is the father of parole in this country, it is the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I hope that I have now made some amends. Certainly a lot of the credit is his: and we are all very pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there. Nevertheless, we must move much faster, and we are moving now in regard to parole as in regard to hostels.
Before I close, I wish to set out briefly my own personal thoughts about the future. I believe (here I am fairly close to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson; we have thought this out independently, and my proposals are not exactly the same as his) that we should set a figure which we should call X for a maximum number of years of imprisonment within the prison system; that is, for those who make genuine efforts to improve. Of course, if people make themselves a thorough nuisance in prison, that is bound to add to their sentence. But I am assuming that the prisoner makes a genuine effort to improve. It should be possible for any man to secure his release from the prison system—I use that phrase explicitly—within this given number of years if he makes geniune efforts to improve. The maximum number would be the same for all prisoners.
Doubtless I shall be asked at once the 64 dollar question: Suppose, in spite of these efforts, and in spite of everything, when the X years are up it is still considered too dangerous to release him? The authorities might be more cautious than I would; but they have the responsibility and in the last resort they must be allowed to make the decision. What then? If they say that after the X years it is not safe for him to be released, at that point he should have the option I urge of a transfer to what I call a therapeutic community. If he prefers prison, of course—and some would—let him stay there. If I were asked what the therapeutic community would look like, I would say that in many cases it would look like Broadmoor, and in all cases it would owe a great deal to Broad-moor. Like others, I have visited Broad-moor. I have one good friend who recently emerged after four years in Broadmoor. I have no doubt whatever that the psychological atmosphere in
676
Broadmoor is quite different from what it is in a long-term prison, and the atmosphere is much superior. No doubt real treatment and real improvement of character is much more possible in Broadmoor than it is in prison.
LORD FERRIER: Or Carstairs.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I will be guided by the noble Lord and perhaps he will follow me up and develop that point in a moment. Whatever other factors may be at work, the essential superiority of Broadmoor lies, so the people who have been there tell me, in the non-punitive atmosphere, as compared with the punitive atmosphere which will always be associated with a prison. In Broadmoor the staff can, and do, convince the inmates—as seldom, if ever, they do in a prison—that the system is really on their side, the staff are doing everything to get the patient back into the community as soon as possible, and that the prisoners can get themselves out by their own exertions. It may be said that this should be possible in regard to prisons, and under the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, of the indeterminate sentence in prison, this may be so. I am only saying that it is going to be a great deal easier, vastly easier, in a community which is frankly outside the prison system.
I can see, with pleasure, that something of this kind has already begun to be introduced into the prison system. Naturally one thinks of parole, which is a real step forward. Last week I visited Parkhurst, as I have already said, and saw the beginnings of an experiment there of very great interest and much significance for the future. I saw a wing in Parkhurst devoted to prisoners with long-term psychological problems—not exactly a smaller Grendon within the walls, but in that respect resembling Grendon. Parkhurst, which is sometimes called the "End of the Road", has this wing for prisoners with psychological problems. So in what might be called a very tough prison an attempt is being made to establish a therapeutic rather than a punitive approach. The Governor said that so far as possible they try to avoid giving punishment, for example, in this wing. I do not want to be too dogmatic in anything I say about one particular approach to this problem

677
necessarily being better than another, but this wing is highly promising. It is under an assistant governor, closely associated with the medical officer, and ing the leadership. You may have some leading medical superintendent; you may is called a "Joint Experiment in Disciplinary and Medical Control". Nevertheless, in spite of a promising experiment of that kind, I repeat that, in my view, if we want a therapeutic community we hands. It may be that part of it could be psychiatric and part of it educational. There could be various ways of organismust in the last resort organise it outside the prison.
There will be quite a number of prisoners who will not benefit in any ordinary sense of the word by being told that they were "disturbed". I do not say that the whole of this therapeutic community has to be in psychiatric have an ex-prison governor, a famous ex-headmaster, some great leader of men, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, or somebody of that kind—if we can find anybody else of that kind. So I do not want to be dogmatic on that point. The idea is plain to the House that anybody who went to prison for many years could know that after a period of x years, if he behaved properly, he would have complete freedom, freedom with certain strings, or the chance of going to this therapeutic community which would be organised entirely for his welfare—at any rate, in the sense that that is true of Broadmoor.
My Lords, we are all at one in trying to solve this human problem, and I do not want to be unduly dogmatic about the number of years or precise arrangements. I would call my institution, a "College of Safety"—somebody may think of a better name. Whatever the precise method adopted, I am quite sure that we cannot go on for ever simply bewildered and helpless with regard to this human problem. We have made a good start this afternoon under the leadership of the right reverend Prelate. I know that the Minister is most humane, and I hope that time after time we shall return to this problem and gradually find our way through to a solution.
7.26 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just resumed his
678
seat commented on the difficulty, after such an interesting discussion as this, of resisting the temptation to take up a substantial number of points which have been made by other speakers. He said that he was going to resist it. I am not altogether sure that he succeeded. I am much less able to resist temptation than my noble friend, whose moral vigour is well known to everybody in this House. I am not going to give way as much as all that, but I will comment on what he said about the rigidity of the system, for I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. In the case of the Home Office, however, it is much more due to the natural rigidity of their old established Government Department than to any lack of good will in the office itself. There is undoubtedly a slow grinding of the wheels which is noticeable to anybody who has taken much part in these criminological operations. I remember opposing pretty vigorously the merging of the Prison Commission into the Home Office some years ago. I still feel that that was a great mistake, and this slowness and rigidity has increased a great deal in the prison administration since that happened.
The remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about suggestions for dealing with long-term cases were on much the same lines as the proposals of my noble friend Lord Donaldson. This interested me very much. In a vague way, my own mind has been turning in that direction. These are serious proposals, and I hope that real attention will be given to them in the Home Office.
I could comment for quite a long time on the most interesting and thoughtful speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, whose interest in these matters is well known to us all. I will resist that temptation, but looking through some volumes of the British Journal of Criminology in the Library, with a view to finding material for this debate, I was interested in an article by Professor Lopez Rey, who is the United Nations expert adviser on these problems. After visiting a number of the prisons in this country he took rather a poor view of them, compared, as I understood it, with the general condition of the prisons on the Continent of Europe. I copied out a sentence from this article which is in the fourth volume of the British Journal of

679
Criminology in which he said that the prisons are
"as unsatisfactory in their living conditions and in their widespread idleness as they were a hundred years ago."
I am afraid that there is a great deal of truth in that. Many of these prisons, of course, are prisons which were already operating then, and operating in a not very different way from the way they are operating now. I will restrain myself from commenting further, although I am afraid that that has taken up a few minutes of the remarks which I prepared.
I should like first of all to join all the other speakers who congratulated the right reverend Prelate from Durham on his speech this afternoon and on giving us the opportunity of discussing this problem. It has also given us the opportunity of having a most informative speech from the Minister, if I may say so; I learnt a great deal from what he said and I shall read carefully in Hansard details of his speech, which was full of interest.
The right reverend Prelate has in a way narrowed the subject. We have been used (as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said) to discussing these things "in the round" for very many years. There is a good deal to be said for picking out a special subject of this kind in the way the right reverend Prelate has done. It gives us the opportunity of going a little deeper, and I personally have found this particular debate one of the most interesting in the series which has been going on now for over twenty years. One of the difficulties is that it rather leads to repetition and some of the points I have on my notes are points which have been explored, more or less thoroughly, by other speakers this afternoon. I shall do my best as I go along not to repeat too much of what has been said.
In the general type of debate one tends to get the idealistic and possibly rather fluffy type of speech to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, was referring. In the kind of specialised discussion we are having to-day one gets a speech which is much more thoughtful, much deeper, much more knowledgeable; though possibly less eloquent, although in the case of the right reverend Prelate one knows from past experience that
680
those qualities are combined with eloquence in his case, and he certainly has not disappointed us to-day.
I propose to take a rather different aspect for the greater part of my speech, and I want to concentrate on the long term—the "very long term", to use the expression from the Home Office Advisory Council. First of all, I should like it to be quite clear that I align myself with the opponents of the very long-term type of sentence, and particularly what one might call the very, very long-term. In the Home Office Advisory Council's admirable White Paper—which I was glad the noble Baroness praised so highly, because it really is an admirable piece of work—sentences are divided into long term and very long term. I rather think (and I shall say more about this a little later on) that one ought to have even a third category—a very, very, long term: that is sentences of over 20 years. The long term is four to 10 years; the very long term is above 10 in the Report. But now we have this third, very small group, but a very important group, the group of those of the over 20 years sentence, which I call the "very, very, long term".
I should say in the first instance—although your Lordships will mostly have heard me say this before—that I am opposed to prison if it can possibly be avoided. We inflict altogether too many sentences of imprisonment. But that is not the subject of to-night's debate. And I quite agree that there are a number of times, in fact a very large number of times, when it is not possible to avoid the infliction of a sentence of imprisonment. That brings one to the length: how long should the sentence of imprisonment be? That is one of the greatest difficulties confronting the sentencer. In the old days, when most crimes were felonies, there was no particular difficulty about this. If we did not execute the man or sentence him to transportation to America or Australia, we kept him in prison for a very long time, indeed often until he died of gaol fever. This procedure during the liberal nineteenth century was discarded, and we reached a stage when we had a more liberal policy in respect of death sentences, though the policy of the long sentence survived into the present century. I can remember when I was a schoolboy, and beginning

681
to be interested in these problems, that sentences of 10 or 15 years were a matter of course with the red judges at the Assizes. One of the interesting points brought out by the Home Office Advisory Council is that after the war until very recently the number of sentences of imprisonment of over 14 years inflicted by the courts was an average of about three a year, which shows how tremendously a penal policy can change well inside a century, or indeed half a century.
Then we had the "Great Train Robbery" and the reaction of the courts was instantaneous and marked a kind of epoch in modern sentencing. It was too instantaneous, but evidently it represents the policy of the superior criminal courts because several of those very long sentences—30 years—were approved by the Court of Appeal.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will agree, will he, that that policy has been much modified by the coming of parole?
LORD CHORLEY: Well, my Lords, I do not think it has been very much modified with these very long, 20 year, sentences; such cases are not really very susceptible, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself pointed out, and the policy of the very, very long sentence has not in fact been in any kind of way discarded, because the figures the Minister gave were, I think, double figures on sentences of over 20 years. It is very questionable whether this is a milestone on the way forward. In my own mind I am convinced that it is a milestone on the way backward. It seems that this is the policy of the highest courts of criminal justice at the present time.
It is a very proper tradition, in the legal profession at any rate, that the individual sentences of a judge should not be questioned; except of course in a court of appeal, where counsel who are appearing have that open to them. But when it is a question of a policy, it is not only right that one should discuss the policy, but it is one's duty to do so. It is quite clear that this policy at the time when it was embarked upon over the mail train robbers in 1963 was received with a good deal of criticism, hostile criticism indeed, not only by some members of the legal profession, but also in at least one well known journal. I
682
myself very much doubt whether it was a wise policy. One can quite understand the feeling at that time, particularly as there had been a number of cases of spies and others where the international security of the country had been at stake.
The whole question of the purposes of imprisonment in the modern State is open to discussion on this issue. Many people take the view that prison is justifiable only on the basis that it is used for the purpose of rehabilitating the prisoner. I myself would not go as far as that, but obviously in the modern context of penology rehabilitation of the prisoner has become a more and more important factor, and one which must receive adequate attention from everybody who is concerned in it.
When you get to the very long-term sentence of imprisonment-10 years and upwards—I think it is fairly clear that you are beginning to get into difficulties as regards re-education and rehabilitation. The Home Office Committee were obviously worried about this. At the very beginning of their chapter on the special problem of prisoners serving very long-term sentences they have a comment which is a fairly strong one coming from a body of this kind. They say that they are
"well aware of the extreme gravity of a decision to deprive a man of his liberty for a substantial portion of his life"—
and when you get a sentence of 30 year, quite obviously it is a substantial portion of his life. Even if the man is going to earn some remission, it remains a very substantial portion of his life and one which is likely, in the words of my noble friend Lord Stonham, to deprive him of hope for the future. I agree with my noble friend and with the right reverend Prelate that that is a very serious thing to do.
When the case of the train robbers came before the Court of Appeal, I remember that one of the advocates who appeared—now Sir Elwyn Jones—quoted from the late Alexander Paterson, who was possibly the most understanding and far-sighted of all the practical penologists in this country in the present century, in which he said that he doubted very much whether it was really feasible to do much in the way of rehabilitating a man when he was in prison for over 10 years. It

683
has come out time after time this afternoon that when a man has been in prison for 10 years or more it is a question of preventing him from degenerating—from, one might say, losing his condition as a human being rather than of being able to turn him back into a normal citizen.
I should like to say a little more on the question of rehabilitation a little later on, but at the moment I want to deal shortly with the three arguments which are put forward for these very long-term sentences. Incidentally, I notice on my notes that Dr. Harman Mannheim, who I should say is the most distinguished living penologist, not only working in this country but in the world, wrote a very interesting article on the American experience. Before the very, very long term sentences were first imposed in this country they had them in America and they had been the subject matter of a very real controversy there. In his article, Dr. Mannheim made clear the view of most, if not the great majority, of penologists, which is an adverse one. But in a way the Americans do it better than we do because their prisons for these very long-term sentences are much more humane institutions.
Those of your Lordships who have read that most interesting and encouraging book, The Birdman of Alcatraz, will remember that a man who was in prison for well over thirty years, and who was allowed to take an interest in birds and to write about them and to become the expert on birds for one of the weekly papers, rehabilitated himself completely because he had an interest in life which men are deprived of under our system. I must say that the one American political prisoner I have known, who was sentenced to a thirty year term, came out only a year or so ago and seems to have kept his sanity and interest in life and standing as a human being in very much the same way as did the Bird Man of Alcatraz.
Of the arguments that are put forward, one is the argument of retribution. When one hears what happened in regard to the train robbers, one's immediate instinct is to think, "They ought to be punished as severely as possible". That old-fashioned outlook is very dangerous and the first thing one has to do is to
684
try to rid oneself of it. Then, of course, there is the argument that a long sentence deters people. An extremely long term of imprisonment is supposed to deter the old Adam in most of us from embarking upon those crimes which we would like to do if we did not know that we were going to be sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment. Here again, Alexander Paterson expressed the doubt as to whether a term of over 10 years had any special deterrent effect on what might be called the professional criminal, who is the man most likely to have that kind of sentence inflicted upon him. Surely, the experience since the infliction of these very heavy sentences upon the train robbers, since when there have been a whole lot of outrageously violent crimes very much of the same atrociousness, shows that these very heavy sentences have had no effect at all as a deterrent. Therefore deterrence is out of it.
The third argument is a much more rational one. It is that there are a certain number of these people who have to be kept locked up pretty well permanently because the safety of the community has to be put before any sort of rights which they may have as human beings. This is an understandable and rational argument. On the other hand, it is a repugnant argument to put before any group of sympathetic and understanding human beings, and I would suggest that we ought not to allow ourselves to be driven into accepting it unless every possible alternative method of handling this type of case has been explored and rejected. It may possibly be that at the end of the whole thing there is a small handful of people who have to be sacrificed, whose humanity has to be put in jeopardy in the interests of their fellow citizens. I would be driven to that conclusion with very great repugnance, and I do not really feel that that situation has been established.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, surely the noble Lord, who is a most enlightened penal reformer, does not really mean that he would entertain the idea of destroying a person's personality?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I would try to keep it alive by the sort of suggestions that are made in the report of

685
the Home Office Committee. However, there may be cases where people will have to be kept locked up. I am not saying that that is so, but I can see that it might happen; and indeed up to a point it does happen, because when people are so mentally disturbed and ill they are sent to Broadmoor, which the noble Earl in his speech to-day compared favourably with the prisons, and we accept that they may have to be kept there for the rest of their lives. Therefore, that is a possibility; and it is a possibility which I believe should be accepted in a number of these cases—that they should be sent to Broadmoor rather than to prison. I believe that if quite a number of these people were properly examined by mental experts, that would be the case.
That is one group. The other group consists of the psychopaths. There is always a great deal of discussion among psychiatrists as to how far psychopaths are curable, and some progress has been made. I think it is fairly clear that a psychopath, at any rate after treatment and after a number of years—or at least some psychopaths—can be sufficiently cured to be released without danger to the community. Then, of course, there are the men who are called normal, although I find it difficult to believe that any man is mentally normal who indulges in the sort of conduct which leads to his being sent to serve one of these very long-term sentences.
I am leaving out the question of life sentences, which I should have liked to discuss, because that has already been adequately dealt with in the debate. A great deal of research is needed into the mental calibre of the people serving life sentences and one of the interesting things about the Home Office Council's Report is that they underline how very little real research has ever been done in regard to these matters. The Council more than once in this Report stress that a great deal more research is essential to a proper understanding and a proper handling of these matters. I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to tell us how far that research has been put in hand.
It is here that I should like to say a few more words on the subject of reeducation and rehabilitation. This, of
686
course, presents an almost insuperable difficulty in the case of these very, very long term prisoners, as the Home Office Council, in this very interesting chapter on the subject, make only too clear. Incidentally, it is interesting to notice that they seem to have overlooked an interesting article in Vol. I of the British Journal of Criminology by a New Zealand psychologist who has been much employed in the New Zealand prison service, in which he deals with the problems of the mentality of these very long-term prisoners. I have an interesting quotation from him which very much bears out what the right reverend Prelate said about the sensitiveness of these men themselves to the danger of becoming prisonised.
This psychologist quoted one particular man who came to him and said that he wanted to be rescued from this and was prepared to do anything with this object in view. He said, "The great thing is that I want to keep myself alive." He recalled how, when he entered the prison, he saw "grey faces with grey suits in a grey world". Your Lordships can just imagine the feelings of the wretched man, coming in from the outside air; the feeling of depression which it caused him to find himself in such surroundings: how much he wanted to resist apathy which he realised was going to be the very real task before him in keeping himself alive and fit to go out to the general community at the end of his long sentence.
I would like to underline one particular passage of the proposals of the Home Office Council in which they propose a week's holiday for the very long-term prisoner who has deserved it. I should be very grateful if the Minister would tell us whether this proposal is being implemented or is likely to be implemented, because it struck me as being one of the most interesting and fruitful of the various suggestions made in this very valuable section, which I was very glad to find the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, underwrote so enthusiastically. It would obviously at this hour be rather foolish to go over all this ground again, although it is very important ground indeed in connection with the subject matter of this debate. I will therefore close by making two more additional points very shortly, and perhaps putting one or two further questions to the Minister who is going to reply.

687
The first point is that I do not feel that the judge who has to do the sentencing, at any rate in many of these very long-term cases, has proper advice and the proper material before him at the time. He is expected to give his decision and almost always does, as it were, off the cuff. Of course, these cases often last a long time, and one knows that the judge, as the case goes on, thinks about the sentence he will impose if the verdict is one of guilty. But I feel that not as much is done as ought to be done to enable the judge to come to a really sound decision at that stage. Some of these criminal prosecutions last for weeks and cost tens of thousands of pounds. And at the end of it all how much time is given to getting the right sentence? Very little. It seems to me that we could afford at this stage to spend a little more money in having further psychiatric and other advice. I would suggest, as another suggestion to be added to those made during the debate, that in any case where the judge is proposing to impose a very long sentence, 10 years or upwards, he should suspend his decision. It would not be quite the indeterminate sentence which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, advocated, but a suspension for, say, a month, or some other period, during which there could be further examination of the man, further discussion with probation officers or other people of that kind. And then, at the end of that time, the judge would be in a very much better position to come to a really sound decision as to the proper sentence. I believe that the money would be very well spent at this stage, and it would be a fleabite compared with the enormous sums often spent on prosecutions.
Then I would underline again the importance of the suggestions which have been made for dealing with these very long-term cases. I entirely underline what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and other speakers about hope. If a man has been sentenced to 30 years, there is not much chance of his obtaining parole until after a very long time. What hope has he? It is very difficult to imagine a man who is buoyant enough to have much hope, although the man arranging to escape who hopes to get away to Spain no doubt
688
encourages himself by learning Spanish. But that is a very unusual case. I feel that not only should we enable the man to have some hope, but we should also encourage his interests in a way which has been described by several of the speakers tonight. Here again, the case of the bird man of Alcatraz is a good example of the way interests can be encouraged. I am sure that many of these long-term prisoners are intellectually able to take advantage of the sort of proposals to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford referred. I agree with him that arrangements ought to be made in the Home Office, with the prison governors, for handling much more rapidly, and I hope much more favourably, such ideas.
I have already asked the Minister about implementation of two proposals of the Home Office Advisory Council. One is in respect of research; and, as I have said before, the Home Office have one of the best research units anywhere in the world if not the best, in criminological and penological matters. They are well placed for carrying out research of this kind, research which is referred to twice in Section XIII of the Report. I was asking the Minister also about the week's holiday. There is another question. On page 61 of the Report on the régime, right at the end, there is a proposal that all these cases should be reviewed at least once every three years. I think the Minister did say that that was being implemented, so I need not ask him to answer that. I will now throw the ball back into the Minister's court, and hope that he will be able to give me the information for which I have been asking.
8.0 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this has been an exceptionally interesting debate, and one of very high quality. The main themes rather surprisingly, have been not so much criticism of the physical conditions in which long-term prisoners are confined, although there has been some of that, but rather concern about very long, fixed sentences and about sentencing policy generally. That has been referred to by several noble Lords; and another main theme has been the treatment of prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, remarked that we were thinking aloud to-day; and that is the purpose of a debate of this sort.

689
That must be true. The value of a debate of this kind is that it helps to influence and inform public opinion.
I really have an impossible task at the end of a debate like this. I have already spoken for half an hour; there have been 12 speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who in a most interesting speech, asked six, seven or eight specific questions. If he will forgive me, I think it will be better for him and for the House if I let him have the answers in writing, as I have done on previous occasions.
I said earlier in the debate that I was trying to strike a balance between security and treatment. What I must try to do now is to balance two other considerations: the need to give due regard to the speeches that have been made with so much thought by noble Lords and the need for reasonable brevity. I think the best way I can do this is by concentrating on a number of points which have been raised, all of them important, underlying which there has been the implication—it was only the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who actually said this—that despite the good intentions of people at the centre, things look very different inside the prison.
Let me start with the question of psychiatric treatment and facilities, because there have been many references to disturbed prisoners and the need to keep the personality alive. Although this is a task that falls to be performed by prison staff and prison medical officers, there is a very extensive network of psychiatric care. Psychiatric facilities are available to longterm offenders from the prison medical service, which has 98 full-time medical officers and about the same number of part-time medical officers. The service can also call upon 47 visiting psychotherapists and five joint consultants in forensic psychiatry. There are 41 prison service establishments which have psychiatric facilities; about two-thirds of the full-time medical officers to whom I have just referred have psychiatric experience, and over half have psychiatric qualifications. Then there are the medically directed psychiatric prisons at Grendon Underwood, which has been referred to in the debate, the psychiatric centres at Wormwood Scrubs and Wakefield Prison and, for women, at Holloway. There is also the very interesting experiment in
690
co-operation between the medical and lay staff under the supervision of the assistant governor at Parkhurst, to which the noble Earl referred in his speech.
It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that in 1970 no fewer than 144 prisoners received psychotherapy at Wakefield Prison alone, and that at Wormwood Scrubs, where, as I explained, there are substantial numbers of long-term prisoners, there are seven visiting psychotherapists who, between them, conduct 14 weekly sessions; a daily average of 26 psychiatric patients are receiving treatment in the hospital at Wormwood Scrubs.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the case of a long-term prisoner who had indicated to him that he was now ready to accept psychiatric treatment; and he criticised my Department quite sharply because, in the time that had passed since the prisoner gave the noble Earl that indication, he had received no assurance that any positive steps had been taken. I am grateful to the noble Earl for not naming the prisoner, because I cannot believe that it would be in the best interests of any prisoner whose mental health might be in question to debate his case publicly. Therefore, in replying to the noble Earl's strictures, I do not want to say anything that might enable the case to be identified in any way. But I can make the general point that a prisoner's stated willingness to receive psychiatric treatment, although a necessary condition if treatment is to be offered, is not the only factor to be taken into account.
There are other factors. These include the question of what weight, having regard to his previous history and the medical diagnosis, should be attached to the prisoner's statement. There is also the question of whether psychiatric treatment, and if so of what kind, can usefully be offered to him, and whether the treatment is likely to help. Then, too, there is the question of the stage of the sentence at which treatment can be best offered. Another question is where in particular the treatment can best be given, having due regard to security and any other considerations which may affect the prisoner's location. I can say, however, that the case to which the noble Earl referred is well known to us. It is receiving close attention by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but it

691
is a case where he does not think it right for a decision to be taken without full medical reports and the most careful thought.
May I say something next about the pre-release employment scheme. The scheme is available for life sentence prisoners, once they have been given a date of release. Like ordinary determinate-sentence prisoners, they can spend the last six months of their sentence on this scheme. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know the figures for last year, because they are significant. The number of places is 367, which allows 734 men each year to pass through, given that a prisoner spends a period of about six months on the scheme. An analysis of the figures for 1968–69 suggests that approximately 72 per cent. of prisoners who were eligible and had reached the last part of their sentence without securing release on parole were accepted as suitable by their pre-release employment selection board. That figure of 72 per cent. is a significant one which we ought to bear in mind.
The question of visits featured in several speeches. The right reverend Prelate, when he opened the debate, referred to visits; and so, too, did the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and other Lords. The aim of the Prison Department is, I should like to stress, to enable a prisoner to maintain contacts through visits with his friends and relatives. For an adult prisoner, the statutory entitlement is one visit in eight weeks, though in practice the frequency is considerably greater than this—at least one every four weeks. Moreover, depending on the pressure on visiting resources in the prison, some prisoners receive regular visits even more frequently than that.
The need to provide adequate waiting facilities, refreshments for visitors and facilities for looking after children is well accepted, and considerable progress has been made. As noble Lords were talking I glanced at a report of what is happening in that field, and perhaps I may quote one or two items, in particular concerning children, for whom there is a particular need for facilities to be provided. At Chelmsford Prison, for example, a new block with a children's room is in the planning stage. At Dartmoor, referred to by the noble Viscount,
692
Lord Monck, soft toys, books, comics, pencil and paper are provided for children; at Leyhill open prison, an outdoor playground for children; and at Maidstone, high chairs are provided and facilities for warming babies' milk. These are things that are happening, not airy policy being discussed within the Home Office; that is where the policy started. Examples such as these are indicative of what is actually taking place within the prisons.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, developed a perspective concerning the treatment of men who have to be detained for very long terms; he suggested that no prisoner should serve more than a stipulated maximum term of imprisonment, whatever that term might be, in order that he might see a light at the end of the tunnel.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I just correct the noble Lord? I said that he should not serve that period without being considered for parole; not that he should not serve it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, quite so; I appreciate that point and accept the correction. The essential point, certainly in relation to the concept of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and, if I understood it right, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson as well, is that there will be some people whom it will not be possible to release after the period of x years. The question, therefore, arises as to where and how they should be detained and treated. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was kind enough to give me advance notice of what he intended to say on this matter. But this is, of course, a large idea, and I should be doing less than justice to the thought that has gone into it if I attempted to give any detailed appreciation, off the cuff, in a brief reply fairly late in the evening. But I can assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord that this is a proposal that will be studied closely and with interest, both in the Home Office and also outside by penologists and criminologists, whose opinions build up and establish a body of public opinion from which, in the end, all policies result.
The suggestion does, however, raise several important questions; and these apply also to the proposals advanced by

693
the noble Lord, Lord Foot. What would the maximum term of imprisonment be? Would such a maximum be reconcilable with the deterrent and retributive objectives of the courts in passing sentence? By what means other than by the Prison Service or the Hospital Service—and having due regard to the nature of the inmates who remain in a therapeutic institution of this sort—would the institution be staffed? Could one single institution meet the needs of the wide variety of offenders who might qualify for it, or would there be a need for more than one institution? What changes in sentencing law and practice would this concept require? The noble Lords who have spoken on this matter have given us all food for thought and the benefit of their very considerable experience in this field.
There is one further point that I should mention: it has not so far come up in the debate, but it bears on sentencing law and practice which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, is really the crucial aspect of these proposals. It is that the law on offences against the person, including the law of homicide and the penalty for murder, is now under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The conclusions of the Committee concerning the respective merits of the life sentence, or the fixed sentence, are very relevant indeed to the proposals that have been put forward to-day.
My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to show that in the Home Office we do indeed think about, and care deeply about, the responsibilities which are placed on us for looking after long-term prisoners, and that we do try to strike a proper balance between the right of the public to be protected and the interests of the individual offender. I am sure that the members of the Prison Department of the Home Office, the governors of the prisons, and the prison staffs will be greatly encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who of course speaks with authority as a former Home Secretary.
I must rebut the allegation made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when he suggested that to prisoners there seems to be a "collective callousness" in Prison Department headquarters, I do
694
not suppose that prisoners are ever very likely to praise their gaolers, but none the less I could not help noting that his generosity of mind led him to pay tribute in his speech to the constructive and imaginative experiment that has been made at Parkhurst with the medically orientated régime that exists there in one of the wings. It is exactly this same headquarters that has put a great deal of effort into setting up and monitoring that experiment.
That really is all I have to say, my Lords. I apologise to those noble Lords who put particular questions to which I have not replied, but I can assure them that I shall go through Hansard with considerable care, and so will my Department, and that they will receive a reply as soon as possible. I have tried in this reply to show what is actually going on in the prisons, whereas in my opening remarks I was describing what the Government's policy was. I have tried to pick out some of the features that seem to me very admirable in the prisons. There are many generous and tolerant actions and decisions which go unsung in the Prison Service, and nobody in that Service would have it otherwise.
8.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I shall not detain much longer those of your Lordships who remain. There are many questions I should like to press and many points I should like to take further about categorisation, review procedures, especially the possible deepening and broadening of diagnosis, about visits, about work, about parole and pre-release schemes, and especially about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—the possible variation of custodial conditions, holidays, and so on. I am certainly very grateful for the suggestions which have been made about public education and indeterminate sentences, and especially grateful, if I may say so, for the most promising suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, of employing auxiliaries to the probation service. However, I think the House has borne with me very generously already.
May I just take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to all the noble Lords who have joined in the debate, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has borne a double

695
burden in the day, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who had perforce to leave but not before he gave us of his rich experience and wisdom, especially in relation to parole and security wings. I must also express gratitude to those who wrote to me encouraging letters expressing their concern for these issues though they could not be here, and also to those who, by their very presence, not least until 8.18 p.m., have shared in the deliberations. I am well content that the topic has been aired so thoroughly, and I dare hope that our words may result in some kind of action matching the deep seriousness of the situation. Because of that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  LOCH STRATHBEG RADIO STATION
  LOCH STRATHBEG RADIO STATION
  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS
  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS
  COMMONWEALTH VISITORS TO UNITED KINGDOM
  COMMONWEALTH VISITORS TO UNITED KINGDOM